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 <gentoo-user+bounces-131722-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1RV745-0006vf-GC
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:40:33 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BAB9021C226;
	Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:40:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com (out3.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1F721C063
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:38:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46])
	by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F50204F1
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:38:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161])
  by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:38:13 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=binarywings.net;
	 h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=FZHLAGGQ59wIGCxuqVxSW6xT
	oAM=; b=oHjf+2Pe/bF6cbAeLkogOTe80PeY9OGfmf9pnf2BErSxVq8p69JpYHcg
	hWOsmZ1MMNH6ibfD0pmh9pJUBdUekgitfeb/6ZhqGZVyq9CYKf0KSTnMgimV+pUV
	BUP2xn+nE/QHae3KKeoVFaZiOzjhIlC4sQuhPYyCsOCdVDjSXXk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
	messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=FZHL
	AGGQ59wIGCxuqVxSW6xToAM=; b=N+r3q+tjSddqiZkv8Q5NNVhfUZYmK0k+lvsK
	x/xcQdCiwN4Fku6bpvsv3MdbilVZEbCaboiH0wnpnbzO8CZPjd9bkcWP89keaO1l
	cP/gZLP6cmXQJjuWL8BZxmjXaYaI+R0N3K6qrhlS7eU9JweBNOGqkzGC0pdcrcGS
	keemqQ8=
X-Sasl-enc: fRRBX0x4WgPvZ0O8DiBW9l9pK2cpCNqQIaPwW9tRkyqX 1322509090
Received: from [192.168.5.18] (serv.binarywings.net [83.169.5.6])
	by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45BEC482534
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:38:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4ED3E30C.8060302@binarywings.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:37:48 +0100
From: Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111031 Thunderbird/7.0.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: Devs and rice flags (Was: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge -j, make -j
 and make -l )
References: <CA+czFiDmbKRjj28ej5zBjb41ZJ8uCLthj6vt7LKLWTa_rAerOw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA2qdGV4QzD-WJyU2rpu3t377eXt1EYgzKp3dwWVQffo0m=N7w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+czFiBKSn0k9Mux_Rq9HXCbY3iT9OcXuFczQ8ifD_UXy2yh-A@mail.gmail.com> <4ED3D954.8040904@binarywings.net> <CA+czFiBtR0i_paeJw_Co1mCDbP7boxfy0QasQWNe74cv_9xO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+czFiBtR0i_paeJw_Co1mCDbP7boxfy0QasQWNe74cv_9xO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4a1pre
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="------------enig0602C7F3316C118B28B3EF6B"
X-Archives-Salt: 6eb466c6-733e-4471-bbf5-8bb206597b8f
X-Archives-Hash: 9c345967c1ff218cd951d7bf3bbfd046

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig0602C7F3316C118B28B3EF6B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am 28.11.2011 20:14, schrieb Michael Mol:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net=
> wrote:
>> Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wr=
ote:
>>> No, you've got some ugly flags in there. -fexcess-precision and
>>> -funsafe-math-optimizations, in particular. (I must have been talking=

>>> to someone else last week; sorry, I'm terrible with names.)
>>>
>>
>> I doubt -fexcess-precision=3Dfast does anything at all. Pandu uses an
>> AMD64 system, right? Then you have -mfpmath=3Dsse set per default and =
SSE
>> does not have excess precision issues (that's just for the old x87 FPU=
).
>> Even if you used that, is redundant because of your other flags. To
>> quote `man gcc`:
>> "-fexcess-precision=3Dstandard is not implemented for languages other =
than
>> C, and has no effect if -funsafe-math-optimizations or -ffast-math is
>> specified." <-- Therefore you always have ..=3Dfast anyway.
>>
>> -funsafe-math-optimizations is really terrible. Either you us floating=

>> point arithmetic, then you have to rely on it because it is hard enoug=
h
>> already to gain necessary precision with it, or you don't, then you
>> don't need that flag because it doesn't improve performance.
>=20
> I didn't know (or forgot) what arch he was using.
>=20
>>> -fomit-frame-pointer shouldn't cause any headaches unless you're
>>> feeding a gdb stack trace, and you're not adding any debugging data,
>>> so your stack traces would be pretty useless, anyway.
>>>
>>
>> If you are on an AMD64 system, this flag is implied because it doesn't=

>> affect stack traces on x86_64 anymore.
>=20
> AMD64 puts the requisite data in its own register, right?
>=20

I guess so. Never actually looked up how stack traces are produced. I
just reproduced what `man gcc` tells me :)

> Yeah, it sounds like Pandu's setup CFLAGS can use some cleanup.
>=20

I wonder how many CPU cycles you save by reducing the number of
parameters emerge has to pass to gcc. ;)

>>> I don't know about -floop-interchange, -floop-strip-mine or
>>> -floop-block. I recognize at least one of them from the discussion of=

>>> graphite the other day.
>>>
>>
>> These definitely need graphite to have any effect. Then they should be=

>> reasonably safe (as far as anything relying on experimental compiler
>> frameworks can be considered safe).
>=20
> Upstream devs might take issue with them, but I'm still not sure they
> should affect bug reports of build-time failures. I would *hope*
> upstream gcc is doing tests on its own build tools compiled with its
> graphite optimizations. I don't know about make and autotools, though.
>=20

Agreed. Even if upstream for failing package doesn't want to handle it,
you can still redirect it to the gcc folks. Even a bug report flagged
WONTFIX or INVALID is helpful for the next user who stumbles upon weird
compile issues.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


--------------enig0602C7F3316C118B28B3EF6B
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)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk7T4xEACgkQqs4uOUlOuU8cnwCfeI4k4Txwn5yBR8pvW3mhL8tM
8eUAn3zugXRl3tgFCn+e90oMdWijxI8S
=qfbV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig0602C7F3316C118B28B3EF6B--