* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC 4.6.0
@ 2011-04-03 14:04 99% ` Mike Frysinger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Mike Frysinger @ 2011-04-03 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 Duncan wrote:
>> Ryan Hill posted on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:11:12 -0600 as excerpted:
>>> You may also want to test your packages with the new -Ofast option to
>>> be sure it doesn't have any hardcoded assumptions about -O flags.
>>
>> The release description I've read for -Ofast says it includes -fast-math,
>> among other things, a flag Gentoo has always strongly discouraged (you
>> break with it, you keep the pieces) and which can get bugs resolved/
>> invalid as a result.
>>
>> Now that gcc 4.6 itself is more strongly supporting it as enabled with one
>> of the -O options, is that policy going to change, or is Gentoo going to
>> officially not support -Ofast, as well?
>
> I doubt we will. If a package breaks because of -Ofast there's really
> nothing we can do about it. It's not a bug in the compiler or the package,
> it's that you explicitly told it to generate non-standard-conformant code.
obviously we will look at ICEs and such, but in terms of apps
misbehaving at runtime, most likely we'll write it up as not a bug
like Ryan says
-mike
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2011-04-03 4:11 [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.6.0 Ryan Hill
2011-04-03 5:50 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-04-03 10:19 ` Ryan Hill
2011-04-03 14:04 99% ` Mike Frysinger
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox