| 1 |
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:06:45 -0300 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:15:34 -0400 |
| 5 |
> Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Christian Ruppert <idl0r@g.o> |
| 8 |
> > wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > I haven't followed the prev. conversation but what's wrong with a |
| 10 |
> > > USE flag for SSE2? We already have SSE2 flags, even global.. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > That's not it. The flash binary uses SSE2 instructions without |
| 13 |
> > checking for their presence, which causes bad things on systems |
| 14 |
> > without SSE2. The purpose of the 'sse2check' flag was to die if the |
| 15 |
> > system doesn't have SSE2 and print a message telling the user to use |
| 16 |
> > an older version of flash. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > The relevant bug is https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410547 |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> wouldnt adding a sse2 useflag and putting it in REQUIRED_USE solve the |
| 22 |
> problem ? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> afaik portage wont even try to upgrade if people have -sse2 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I like that, but it doesn't address building on a host not supporting SSE2 for |
| 27 |
a target that does. That's the reason the USE flag was added - to provide a |
| 28 |
workaround for the die. I'm saying just don't die at all. It doesn't |
| 29 |
provide anything but another way for the ebuild to fail. An ewarn for the |
| 30 |
very few people that will actually encounter this should be enough. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
fonts, gcc-porting |
| 35 |
toolchain, wxwidgets |
| 36 |
@ gentoo.org |
Archives