From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OUndw-0002Jo-8r for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:19:31 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3827AE0923; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 21:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BB7E08E5 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 21:19:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vapier.localnet (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ACFA1B4010; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 21:19:09 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] debug USE flag misuse Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:17:52 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.1 (Linux/2.6.34; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Ryan Hill References: <20100702143957.7f2660ca@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20100702143957.7f2660ca@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1514744.UzpHQF4RUJ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201007021717.53623.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 8e6da288-8c89-44d4-820e-3c8d2a596ae4 X-Archives-Hash: 7439758d0712caa1bfa4ea88af785472 --nextPart1514744.UzpHQF4RUJ Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Friday, July 02, 2010 16:39:57 Ryan Hill wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:29:44 +0200 (CEST) Vaeth wrote: > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > If your build system sets -ffast-math or -fstrict-aliasing > > > then the user can disable this by setting -fno-fast-math > > > or -fno-strict-aliasing in their CFLAGS. > >=20 > > Just because some flags have "counter"-flags by accident, > > this does not hold for all flags. It is more reasonable to have > > other means that the flags are not modified in the first place. >=20 > I can't think of any flags that don't have a corresponding counter flag, > other than -m flags. At least, all -f and -W flags have opposite -fno and > -Wno versions, even if they're not explicitly documented. and this isnt "by accident", this is in the fundamental design of gcc argum= ent=20 processing. the only -f/-W flags that lack this are rare exceptions. =2Dmike --nextPart1514744.UzpHQF4RUJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJMLleBAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBq90QAMVV/O3aXaXkMD8lAivq80kj pZw+2YqY7NRZUDV7kxixcq+cSCtQ8tI3X/ufZMKD7sF25/GjrcMcHSyoc4xCi9uS ReTZTbRPeYBgBqnff1ysx/ivygYiTp2r7KxIRH+L7Q09z3KSEd9SkHG5IB1+Ukz4 kIcKy4gOq2//TEmUxk86aWoOxDP0wSat4ZlYTIZNWT0MNWEMw07UrfD1H7pVDH47 NmAzXH9SE+s1lEIE+Wyu9DoMvedbGPtzvDHTKt7b2rTbR9B9hkWlyogMdalxkVBJ BuHGYX03zdrKWDEBNKlBgtWxAI/rmEk158X2hu4FMOJnh++Q8R3zuWPgRrHKm2UA dWcF34sgg5bgabxiUl5OQlTAf71iCGiJFl1Bx5IFjMl/XVFu8Ocd55JoNeoG7l2O ifv/9PNjInzDu9Fcylacks6UVtYqKko9GOe5GsY7Ui3y8V6uRQuTdbA3+++XEiQ8 SZHMJ52L1KgrctINHX9b19m0Z80VCIy0l9a+pzpoMq26uU93jdS4I2EmKy3RjUhE Y0kJ/q76qHVjVk9K5MJ2toykPAYrDOdBPxt2ZcVImjnoR9T6CccF4kMsPU+MtbqI f0s8052ZkB2pxjfZaQhXv8ciupHNlxH/Rh98ldkQLJbAYDDTil+U00JJ71f1GUW6 Jce0/I6GviqNTJXGp2Ws =hKyx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1514744.UzpHQF4RUJ--