Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Spider <spider@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposition for stage3.
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:38:16
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposition for stage3. by Rufiao
1 begin quote
2 On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:48:00 -0300
3 Rufiao <rufiao@×××.net> wrote:
5 >
6 > I haven't build a whole system using that yet. Any packages break
7 > specifically because of this flag?
8 >
9 > Per Wigren [Tue 18-Jun-2002 18:41 GMT+0200]:
10 > > -fomit-frame-pointer often gives a noticable speedup also...
14 I will personally slay the person to include this in the default system,
15 as -any- bug found at a higher level in the chain will be rendered
16 completely undebuggable if glibc or other library that it links uses
17 this, The initial speedup is trivial for things such as the basesystem,
18 and to simply ignore all bugreports from a person who uses it is quite a
19 valid proposition as far as I'm concerned.
21 Why the strong feelings about it? bugreports are quite vital to our QA
22 and future survival, and to our users if they ever want to try anything
23 even remotely unstable, or development (face it, quite a few do), and
24 the amount of trouble this flag generates further down the line is
25 immense.
27 Yes, you can leave it as a suggestion if you wish, though it should be
28 noted that "this will break all debugging and render all bugreports
29 useless, as well as it may introduce odd crashes which will not be
30 traceable" , But it should -not- be thought of as an default
31 alternative.
33 Better for defaults would be -fno-exceptions for C++ and C code,
34 although this also breaks code, but more noticable in most cases.
36 //Spider
39 --
40 begin .signature
41 This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
42 See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
43 end