| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-06-07 at 13:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:29:39 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" |
| 3 |
> <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > Sounds rather flaky and unreliable... |
| 6 |
> | Sounds rather vague and without arguments. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Well, you're assuming that |
| 9 |
> a) everyone's using a C compiler, |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
If you're on Gentoo, I sure hope you have a C compiler |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> b) that gcc has the slightest clue what it's doing, |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Again, if you've compiled your whole system with gcc, I guess its a safe |
| 16 |
bet |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> c) that the user has no problem using nasty hacks to regain control, |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Since when is setting your -march/-mnosse/-mnommx/-mno3dnow a nasty |
| 21 |
hack? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> d) that this information is only needed at compile time, |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I agree this is a problem.. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> e) that various gcc internal definitions won't change... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
We can always change the eclass and check the GCC version if that |
| 30 |
happens. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Olivier Crête |
| 34 |
tester@g.o |
Archives