Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Ned Ludd]

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 18:53 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200
> > Harald van Dijk <truedfx@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most
> > > > > patches don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't
> > > > > a supported compiler in Gentoo.
> > > >
> > > > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of
> > > > USE=vanilla ...
> > >
> > > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
> > > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
> > > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done
> > > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done
> > > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.
> >
> > If you take out the stub patches (which incidentally have no impact on
> > code generation), many builds will simply fail because they expect the
> > additional flags from ssp, htb etc to be there.
>
> That's the point. I mentioned being able to test whether your own
> software compiles with a pure GNU toolchain as a desire. Being able to
> see whether unofficial compiler options are used is not just a nice
> extra, but even necessary for that.
>
> > Since they have no impact on code generation, their presence doesn't
> > impact comparisons with a pure upstream release.
> >
> > > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem
> > > > changing this behavior
> > > >
> > > > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now,
> > > > i really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+
> > >
> > > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if
> > > it is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be
> > > called "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this
> > > thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to
> > > complain about now.)
> >
> > Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then
> > that patch makes no difference to code generation.
>
> Yes, but if GCC_SPECS is defined in the environment, I don't know enough
> about it to be sure that it interacts properly with -specs command-line
> options. Even if it works perfectly, though, the point remains that it
> does not belong in a USE=vanilla build.


Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the 
vanilla flag being removed all together.. You want a pure 100% 
vanilla(POS) non working toolchain then go download it and 
compile it yourself. You will soon see why things exist the way 
they do..

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list