| 1 |
On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most patches |
| 5 |
> > > don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't a supported |
| 6 |
> > > compiler in Gentoo. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of USE=vanilla |
| 9 |
> > ... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of |
| 12 |
> USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with |
| 13 |
> USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done |
| 14 |
> accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done |
| 15 |
> deliberately with a misleading cvs log message. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your |
| 18 |
request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go with |
| 19 |
what we have now. see how your usage of "ignored" is incorrect here ? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
as Kevin pointed out, the stubs do not affect code generation so i preferred |
| 22 |
to keep users from breaking themselves |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
also, at the time, i told you you could easily work around the stub situation |
| 25 |
by simply deleting them: |
| 26 |
rm /usr/portage/sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/* |
| 27 |
and then add sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/ to your rsync exclude list |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
once we have 4.1.1 in stable, i'll be happy to update the eclass to not apply |
| 30 |
the stubs when USE=nossp as the majority of users will no longer be in the |
| 31 |
situation i referred to earlier |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem changing |
| 34 |
> > this behavior |
| 35 |
> > |
| 36 |
> > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now, i |
| 37 |
> > really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+ |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if it |
| 40 |
> is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be called |
| 41 |
> "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this thread |
| 42 |
> started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to complain about |
| 43 |
> now.) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont really |
| 46 |
see how you could have expected this to be fixed already |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
i'll update cvs when i get a chance |
| 49 |
-mike |
Archives