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 7BE5F1381F3 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85DE6E0950; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9907AE0931 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.170.36.150] (85-76-52-139-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.52.139]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50B1F335E17 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:05:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51C80BDE.90600@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:05:34 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.6 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] Introduce global dmalloc USE flag? References: <20130613070520.5e919998@gentoo.org> <51C34B21.2040504@gentoo.org> <1372064040.19250.3.camel@gilles.gandi.net> In-Reply-To: <1372064040.19250.3.camel@gilles.gandi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 3a908978-527a-4f95-8346-49352d47eeec X-Archives-Hash: 7ef8a6b368ef3633375ee299fe2854e5 On 24/06/13 11:54, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Le samedi 22 juin 2013 à 15:48 +0800, Dennis Lan (dlan) a écrit : >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> On 13/06/13 01:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>>> Dnia 2013-06-13, o godz. 09:35:54 "Dennis Lan (dlan)" >>>> napisał(a): >>>> >>>>> also 4) app-admin/conserver 5) net-nds/ypbind 6) net-fs/samba 7) >>>>> net-analyzer/scli 8) net-analyzer/traceproto 6) net-misc/siproxd >>>>> >>>>> use dmalloc but controlled under USE=debug >>>> >>>> Do those use USE=debug solely for dmalloc or does it imply other >>>> stuff? Therefore: will it be possible to use USE=dmalloc in those >>>> packages? >> >> HI mgorny, as I look into those ebuilds >> all of them use the USE=debug flag for dmalloc only, not for other >> debugging control >> so, as your second question, of course it's possible to switch to USE=dmalloc >> >>>> >>> >>> and to follow up, if we assume that USE="debug" does more than just >>> build the package against the dmalloc lib (which is likely), is there >> >> Yes, if this case exist.. then the separation would be good >> >> >>> any particular benefit to USE="debug -dmalloc" ? Or USE="dmalloc >>> - -debug" ? >>> >> >> I'm not sure, probably the befefits would be that we can have more >> accurate/explicit control, >> USE="dmalloc" is for debugging memory usage stuff (allocation, free, >> fence-post overwritten control) >> and USE=debug for other stuff? >> >> This is a slightly improvement, but I'm also totally fine to keep >> current state as it is.. no big deal > > Reading this thread, looks to me like these dmalloc USE should be moved > to debug, unless it has no runtime impact on usual speed, etc. > It does. In most often cases building against dmalloc makes the application/library completely unusable, and building it against dmalloc is intended for the developer of the application. Separated USE=dmalloc is the only sane way to approach it.