Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:45:16
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN by Ryan Hill
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 04:37:05PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> I thought he wanted flags that broke upgrading between GCC 3.4 and 4.1. > tree-loop-linear wasn't in 3.4. If you want flags that just break > stuff with 4.1 you can include -ftree-vectorize.
> > The objective here was mainly to point out some things that users are > > doing that are causing breakages, leading to bugs that are ultimately > > marked INVALID after much tracing. > Like using CFLAGS not on the Safe CFLAGS page? ;)
Not really. One needs to use some common sense as a developer in evaluating user CFLAGS - because there are plenty of flags that are safe, but aren't listed on that page. Several years ago, I wrote a package that was the forerunner of the 'Safe CFLAGS' page - genflags. It was close to unmaintable at the time however, so it's suffered a lot of bit-rot. With the advent of libcpuinfo, and x86info being written, it stands a much better chance of giving useful output, but that still does not supersede the common sense statement above. -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : robbat2@g.o GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85