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 |