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 1RWezm-0004eT-A6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 02:06:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E386821C0FA for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 02:06:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B41F21C02C for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 01:36:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (d14-69-47-19.try.wideopenwest.com [69.14.19.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8135E1B4002 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 01:36:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4ED97D10.30002@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 20:36:16 -0500 From: Mike Gilbert User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111116 Thunderbird/8.0 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] filter-mfpmath: has Gentoo out grown it ? References: <201112021757.14135.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201112021757.14135.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig011AB753222EF463E45ECBA4" X-Archives-Salt: 68640395-06ad-4a8a-beaf-5725c0f12082 X-Archives-Hash: 19c674863915260707ebd9d6bb623ac4 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig011AB753222EF463E45ECBA4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/02/2011 05:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > i'd like to think Gentoo has grown up now to the point where we don't b= other=20 > with trivial ricer behavior. to that end, i'd like to EOL `filter-mfpm= ath`. >=20 > my main beef with filtering -mfpmath is that we use this only when some= one=20 > actually notices and reports misbehavior with the package in question, = the=20 > behavior can fluctuate between gcc versions, and it's questionable whet= her the=20 > flag makes a significant difference in performance. considering this i= s x86- > only, and our main user base is amd64 based, it doesn't see nearly the = amount=20 > of attention that it did in the past. i'd prefer we leave this flag to= the=20 > respective upstream packages to validate when it should be used (i.e. t= he=20 > mplayer's and ffmpeg's and such in the world). >=20 > Ryan did a check and it seems we've got all of 5 packages (and one ecla= ss)=20 > using this. so i say it's time to scrub the tree, punt the func, and t= hen=20 > punt people who attempt to report bugs when building their whole system= with - > mfpmath and see misbehavior. > -mike I've never thought of -mfpmath=3Dsse as a "ricer" flag. If anything, it should make floating point calculations more consistent. Back when I used x86, I had it in my global CFLAGS and can't remember it causing any issues. The varying behavior between gcc versions seems like a possibly good reason to not "support" it, but I'm not familiar with this. Has it stabilized recently or is it still in flux? I would rather leave this in the hands of package maintainers than punt it globally. --------------enig011AB753222EF463E45ECBA4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk7ZfRMACgkQC77qH+pIQ6SztAD/dU39x6BjnXaJKXTPVdbTQASk AA3TigrPDG9L6i5eLXwBALlcM+wd1BK33Smmcl6Ab/k8sRG84n/gxygX6sXI9fvT =Nfzv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig011AB753222EF463E45ECBA4--