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 1Q6GDq-0007Zu-Pp for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 05:51:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 382691C015; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:51:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E455AE0592 for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E5D1B4024 for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ubwVKxb0ZdO6 for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7CA1B400B for ; Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q6GCw-0006xP-Cd for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 07:50:42 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 07:50:42 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 07:50:42 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC 4.6.0 Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20110402221112.2101b4c1@gentoo.org> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.134 (Wait for Me; GIT 9383aac branch-testing) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 00e163da3cb881a4357e54aff7078548 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,= =20 among other things, a flag Gentoo has always strongly discouraged (you=20 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 on= e=20 of the -O options, is that policy going to change, or is Gentoo going to=20 officially not support -Ofast, as well? Or is that yet to be established, thru testing? FWIW, I've always stayed away from that flag, but if Gentoo's going to=20 support it now, that may well change, tho I'd certainly disable it for=20 specific packages using /etc/portage/env/*, as I already do for=20 -combine, in my default CFLAGS but not CXXFLAGS, for instance. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman