From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C13138CA2 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:02:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46DBAE08A5; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:02:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f44.google.com (mail-oi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6929EE083E for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:02:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oign205 with SMTP id n205so155030826oig.2 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:02:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=FyGehhW3y72S/G9WSXTuzQmLcSg75BBhHq45hImCGFU=; b=lEV80Fs9HU0SVHAaT3HuIHIrIsePU9XnxLACXfFLcHxUIqQcOAvunSoNTT/9NRSjMp R85VfJoosgHW6qArykdouu33NTs9p8ClRVK1LUGLE2gSV4i0OeGXZgYFci8lU83JIEgC Yx70XmLq/gyXG9Mp4R0/0ovfNnxC5IQSQNVMR8M3dpHTpFD3ur13+dnFGXJ33LBxBjAj 4i9mrZ8B+HBqJmVVkwG4FuO0tYTaqrK99NCB1VyG5yaldhkc0pbv230ePZG8Z3YZNp8Z jP/9OjZaErRIJpMRGbdfC4XxfLVNnFINhVEI+P7bVZeHQXZNfpsiywwCVqet9EhKRnP/ lhrw== X-Received: by 10.202.230.11 with SMTP id d11mr18185811oih.6.1429628552673; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cd3sm1337999oec.2.2015.04.21.08.02.30 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 10956 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:02:24 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:02:24 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should this be considered a gcc bug? Message-ID: <20150421150224.GA10882@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: 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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Archives-Salt: 6d2f3010-f0cd-4bd8-ad1c-49f1aa1b8a45 X-Archives-Hash: 63369d0b545108091efe50383e0ecd7b --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 09:57:16AM +0600, grozin@gentoo.org wrote: > Hello *, >=20 > There was a bug #526194 - dev-lisp/sbcl does not respect CFLAGS. It was= =20 > "fixed" by Mark Wright on Jan 31 - Feb 1. However,=20 > after this fix the upstream CFLAGS were appended to the user-supplyed=20 > ${CFLAGS}. And the upstream CFLAGS contain -O3. So, is a user has, e.g.,= =20 > -O2 in his/her ${CFLAGS}, it was silently replaced by -O3. For some time,= =20 > nobody noticed this: gcc-4.8 happily compiled the C stuff in sbcl with=20 > -O3. The best fix here would be to ask upstream to stop putting -O3 in their default CFLAGS. Thanks, William --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlU2ZoAACgkQblQW9DDEZThz7ACcDdAKpLfD4z6eDbHzXscmQX1v /KgAn2ul/k2oc5rs0uZBQ2PZrBbbBVUl =Z7gj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--