Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Harald van Dijk" <truedfx@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:57:50
Message-Id: 20060707165304.GA3255@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags) by "Kevin F. Quinn"
1 On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
2 > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200
3 > Harald van Dijk <truedfx@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
6 > > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote:
7 > > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most
8 > > > > patches don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't
9 > > > > a supported compiler in Gentoo.
10 > > >
11 > > > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of
12 > > > USE=vanilla ...
13 > >
14 > > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
15 > > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
16 > > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done
17 > > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done
18 > > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.
19 >
20 > If you take out the stub patches (which incidentally have no impact on
21 > code generation), many builds will simply fail because they expect the
22 > additional flags from ssp, htb etc to be there.
23
24 That's the point. I mentioned being able to test whether your own
25 software compiles with a pure GNU toolchain as a desire. Being able to
26 see whether unofficial compiler options are used is not just a nice
27 extra, but even necessary for that.
28
29 > Since they have no impact on code generation, their presence doesn't
30 > impact comparisons with a pure upstream release.
31 >
32 > > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem
33 > > > changing this behavior
34 > > >
35 > > > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now,
36 > > > i really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+
37 > >
38 > > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if
39 > > it is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be
40 > > called "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this
41 > > thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to
42 > > complain about now.)
43 >
44 > Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then
45 > that patch makes no difference to code generation.
46
47 Yes, but if GCC_SPECS is defined in the environment, I don't know enough
48 about it to be sure that it interacts properly with -specs command-line
49 options. Even if it works perfectly, though, the point remains that it
50 does not belong in a USE=vanilla build.
51 --
52 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies