| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 25/02/13 23:21, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> My point was just that: |
| 4 |
>> 1. No, the fact that entire packages fail to build/operate using |
| 5 |
>> -ffast-math is not a valid bug. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> From your email the message was the opposite, maybe a not got lost? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I think that I must be cursed with some kind of cloud of |
| 10 |
misunderstanding when I write or something. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This is what I'm saying: |
| 13 |
If you run CFLAGS="-ffast-math" emerge <foo> then you get to keep the pieces. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If you run emerge foo, and the upstream build system happens to use |
| 16 |
-ffast-math on a single module and it has been working for 10 years |
| 17 |
and GCC 4.7 breaks it, then maybe there is something to it. Certainly |
| 18 |
I support that this is something that the gcc team and the package |
| 19 |
maintainer should work out - just because upstream does it doesn't |
| 20 |
mean that it is right. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> That means that if the upstream cflags do not work (anymore?) with |
| 23 |
> certain compilers we should notify them. Seems sensible to do. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I don't think we're really disagreeing here... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives