| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 02:56 +0200, Lionel Bouton wrote: |
| 2 |
> Here's an updated draft. I included most of your remarks and added some |
| 3 |
> notes on append-flags/filter-flags. I'll probably submit it to Ulrich |
| 4 |
> around the end of the week. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I surely hope you don't submit it to Ulrich if you want it to actually |
| 7 |
ever get in the GWN. Instead, you should submit it to |
| 8 |
gwn-feedback@g.o like the GWN tells you to do. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
=] |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Thanks, |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> --- Draft BEGIN --- |
| 15 |
> <section> |
| 16 |
> <title>CFLAGS</title> |
| 17 |
> <body> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> <p> |
| 20 |
> Being able to tune the CFLAGS is part of one of the core principles of |
| 21 |
> Gentoo: let the user be in control. Being in control brings both |
| 22 |
> benefits and problems and CFLAGS tuning is not an exception. |
| 23 |
> </p> |
| 24 |
> <p> |
| 25 |
> The recent upgrade to gcc-4.1.1 for x86 and amd64 users changed the |
| 26 |
> landscape. Users that spent some time tuning their CFLAGS with gcc-3.4.6 |
| 27 |
> might find out that an upgrade to gcc-4.1.1 leaves them with an unstable |
| 28 |
> system. Example of this are : |
| 29 |
> <ul> |
| 30 |
> <li>nss_ldap stopped working with <c>-ffast-math</c> (reported to break |
| 31 |
> many packages changing with the actual gcc version)</li> |
| 32 |
> <li><c>-fvisibility-inlines-hidden</c> still breaks some code</li> |
| 33 |
> <li>if you used gcc-4.0, <c>-ftree-loop-linear</c> now breaks in |
| 34 |
> gcc-4.1(at least with mesa)</li> |
| 35 |
> <li>again for gcc-4.0 users, <c>-ftree-vectorize</c> is known to be |
| 36 |
> broken in gcc-4.1 (at least for x86 and ppc, amd64 users seem to be |
| 37 |
> safe)</li> |
| 38 |
> <li><c>-fforce-addr</c> and <c>-fweb</c> break regularly on x86 with |
| 39 |
> video libraries or graphic processing apps which use hand-optimised ASM</li> |
| 40 |
> </ul> |
| 41 |
> </p> |
| 42 |
> <p> |
| 43 |
> Users with unsupported CFLAGS (see the <uri |
| 44 |
> link='http://gentoo-wiki.com/CFLAGS_matrix'>CFLAGS matrix</uri> for |
| 45 |
> example) might want to return to safe CFLAGS (see <uri |
| 46 |
> link='http://gentoo-wiki.com/Safe_Cflags'>Safe CFLAGS</uri>) if recent |
| 47 |
> updates caused them stability problems. On the other hand, more |
| 48 |
> adventurous users might want to experiment with CFLAGS that didn't work |
| 49 |
> properly with gcc-3.4.6... As always, the user is in control. |
| 50 |
> </p> |
| 51 |
> <p> |
| 52 |
> Notes: |
| 53 |
> <ul> |
| 54 |
> <li>The gcc man page contains warnings for some unsafe optimization |
| 55 |
> options. You should read it carefully when you experiment with CFLAGS or |
| 56 |
> upgrade GCC on a CFLAGS-customized Gentoo.</li> |
| 57 |
> <li>Some options that are unsafe in the system-wide CFLAGS might be |
| 58 |
> added automatically in some ebuilds if the developper deems them safe |
| 59 |
> (by redefining CFLAGS or using append-flags of the flag-o-matic eclass). |
| 60 |
> For example <c>-ffast-math</c> is added by the xmame/xmess ebuilds on |
| 61 |
> most architectures even if you don't put it in your CFLAGS.</li> |
| 62 |
> <li>You might get an idea of the stability issues of a specific |
| 63 |
> optimization option by running: <c>find /usr/portage -name '*.ebuild'| |
| 64 |
> xargs grep -- '-<your-risky-optimization-option>'</c>. It takes quite |
| 65 |
> some time, but might be enlightening: look for the 'filter-flags'.</li> |
| 66 |
> </ul> |
| 67 |
> </p> |
| 68 |
> </body> |
| 69 |
> </section> |
| 70 |
> --- Draft END --- |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> Lionel |
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 75 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 76 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 77 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
| 78 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives