* [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC 4.6.0
@ 2011-04-03 10:19 99% ` Ryan Hill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Ryan Hill @ 2011-04-03 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1231 bytes --]
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> 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.
--
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ 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 99% ` Ryan Hill
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox