| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 Duncan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Ryan Hill posted on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:11:12 -0600 as excerpted: |
| 4 |
>>> You may also want to test your packages with the new -Ofast option to |
| 5 |
>>> be sure it doesn't have any hardcoded assumptions about -O flags. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> The release description I've read for -Ofast says it includes -fast-math, |
| 8 |
>> among other things, a flag Gentoo has always strongly discouraged (you |
| 9 |
>> break with it, you keep the pieces) and which can get bugs resolved/ |
| 10 |
>> invalid as a result. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Now that gcc 4.6 itself is more strongly supporting it as enabled with one |
| 13 |
>> of the -O options, is that policy going to change, or is Gentoo going to |
| 14 |
>> officially not support -Ofast, as well? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I doubt we will. If a package breaks because of -Ofast there's really |
| 17 |
> nothing we can do about it. It's not a bug in the compiler or the package, |
| 18 |
> it's that you explicitly told it to generate non-standard-conformant code. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
obviously we will look at ICEs and such, but in terms of apps |
| 21 |
misbehaving at runtime, most likely we'll write it up as not a bug |
| 22 |
like Ryan says |
| 23 |
-mike |
Archives