Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:54:29
Message-Id: 1152287277.8423.15.camel@onyx
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles by Danny van Dyk
1 Quite honestly I see this as providing no advantage what so ever over
2 the current USE="mmx blah foo" that we already have..
3
4 Please explain to me what I'm missing here..
5 How does this help us?
6
7
8 On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 16:20 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
9 > OK, this rfc/proposal is competing with Flameeye's proposal:
10 >
11 > I suggest to add a "CPUFLAGS" USE_EXPAND variable to the tree.
12 > This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86,
13 > it should not set CPUFLAGS at all, and on AMD64 it should be
14 > CPUFLAGS="mmx sse sse2"
15 >
16 > I'm no quite sure, but i assume ppc/ppc32 should leave CPUFLAGS empty,
17 > and ppc/ppc64 should set
18 > CPUFLAGS="altivec".
19 >
20 >
21 > The main reasons for a USE-like implementation om contrast to Diego's
22 > proposal are:
23 >
24 > a) There is no call to gcc involved, but only a call to use(). This
25 > allows usage in metadata phase.
26 > b) There is no implicit (non-transparent) choice made for the users.
27 > c) It doesn't mix CFLAGS' purpose (which has a meaning beyond Gentoo)
28 > with the purpose of optional codepaths.
29 >
30 > I know, there aren't use-based deps in portage yet, but I really feel
31 > uncomfortable to be unable to use cpuflags in metadata phase. This is
32 > what worries me most.
33 >
34 > Danny
35 > --
36 > Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o>
37 > Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
38 --
39 Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
40 Gentoo Linux
41
42 --
43 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list