| 1 |
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:45:21 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" |
| 2 |
<flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Thursday 06 July 2006 23:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > No, Diego. The argument is that you're coming up with a horrible and |
| 5 |
| > unnecessary hack where there are far cleaner alternatives, and that |
| 6 |
| > you're blindly sticking to it and trying to throw off any |
| 7 |
| > objections by devious means because you don't want to scrap said |
| 8 |
| > hack after all the misguided effort you've spent on it. However, |
| 9 |
| > since you seem to be incapable of admitting the gaping flaws in |
| 10 |
| > your own work, I'm asking for someone else to point this out to you |
| 11 |
| > in a formal manner rather than watch this thread go on for even |
| 12 |
| > longer. |
| 13 |
| |
| 14 |
| Wait, isn't that what _you_ usually do? Like climbing up on mirrors |
| 15 |
| when you misunderstood something and blamed someone for an error that |
| 16 |
| was never made, trying to find another glitch in the procedure to |
| 17 |
| back it up? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Please try to keep this technical, even if your co-developers can't... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
| I'm entirely ready to scrap what I have here if I find _valid reasons |
| 22 |
| to_. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What's wrong with the ones you've been given so far? I'll summarise the |
| 25 |
ones I consider important: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
* it's relying upon non-guaranteed GCC internals. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
* it's relying upon GCC knowing the state of the underlying system, |
| 30 |
which fails at least for VIS. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
* it's removing the ability to get access to the data at the metadata |
| 33 |
phase, leading to what you yourself called a "regression". |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
* it's forcing users to use insane CFLAGS hacks, which we've spent years |
| 36 |
telling them not to do and for good reason, to get back to previous |
| 37 |
behaviour. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
* a large part of the justification is based upon a misunderstanding of |
| 40 |
how cross compilation should be done. The correct way around this |
| 41 |
problem was already posted to the thread by solar. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
* it's removing transparency and simplicity and replacing them with |
| 44 |
obfuscation and complexity. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
* it's taking a variable with a well defined purpose and abusing it for |
| 47 |
something unrelated. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Will that lot do or would you like some more? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 53 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives