Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Genflags 0.91

[Spider]

begin  quote
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:58:47 +0100
Dhruba Bandopadhyay <dhruba@××××××××××××.uk> wrote:

>
> -fomit-frame-pointer -fprefetch-loop-arrays -falign-functions=4
> -funroll-loops -ffast-math -fforce-addr
>
> Can initiative be taken to provide a slightly more aggressive yet safe
> set of cflags assigned to a command parameter or would that be
> difficult and time consuming to incorporate into the tool?  Just a
> thought.
>
> Looking forward to the next version on portage.
>

- NO -
Not until you can remove all the hard to debug checks in portage for
theese flags, where you rebuild gstreamer, avifile, mjpegtools and
others with them, on all architectures, and it works.

I do -NOT- want to get the support issue of "recommended
overoptimization" again, and certain users who insist on doing it and
calling it "safe and stable" (in all other cases than the ones where
something -unexpectedly- breaks and is impossible to debug)  should
really take themselves up to the task of doing support for all the
optimization testing there is ever avaiable.

(oh its harmless, everything works with it but abiword crashes when I
copy text.... *grumble*)

As a developer who has become bitter and turned off by the floods of
bugs which pour in with theese optimizations even after filtering and
removal as well as the documented process that you shall rebuild all
dependencies with low optimizations before filing a bug......

....i dont want to have such a script recommend those flags as "stable".

So you are the example user, who really know what you are doing, who
really do rebuild everything as -O3 or -O2 when you get a crash....
Good. Then you also know where to set CFLAGS higher and when not to. you
dont need a tool to tell you theese flags.

</rant>

//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end