1 |
OK, this rfc/proposal is competing with Flameeye's proposal: |
2 |
|
3 |
I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree. |
4 |
This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86, |
5 |
it should not set CPUFLAGS at all, and on AMD64 it should be |
6 |
CPUFLAGS="mmx sse sse2" |
7 |
|
8 |
I'm no quite sure, but i assume ppc/ppc32 should leave CPUFLAGS empty, |
9 |
and ppc/ppc64 should set |
10 |
CPUFLAGS="altivec". |
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
The main reasons for a USE-like implementation om contrast to Diego's |
14 |
proposal are: |
15 |
|
16 |
a) There is no call to gcc involved, but only a call to use(). This |
17 |
allows usage in metadata phase. |
18 |
b) There is no implicit (non-transparent) choice made for the users. |
19 |
c) It doesn't mix CFLAGS' purpose (which has a meaning beyond Gentoo) |
20 |
with the purpose of optional codepaths. |
21 |
|
22 |
I know, there aren't use-based deps in portage yet, but I really feel |
23 |
uncomfortable to be unable to use cpuflags in metadata phase. This is |
24 |
what worries me most. |
25 |
|
26 |
Danny |
27 |
-- |
28 |
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> |
29 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project |
30 |
-- |
31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |