| 1 |
Dnia 2014-01-12, o godz. 03:50:53 |
| 2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:24:20 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Dnia 2014-01-12, o godz. 01:53:47 |
| 8 |
> > Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > fortran: |
| 11 |
> > > Do we want to keep enabling fortran by default? The majority of users will |
| 12 |
> > > never get the urge to install a fortran package, and the fortran eclass |
| 13 |
> > > handles those that do. I think it should be treated as all the other |
| 14 |
> > > optional languages and disabled by default, but I'd like to know if there |
| 15 |
> > > are other opinions. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Well, I'd say we should work on making 'other languages' buildable |
| 18 |
> > without rebuilding the whole giant gcc stack. Especially that |
| 19 |
> > the stacked build makes it impossible to use distcc at least partially. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Bootstrapping makes distcc impossible, and you can't bootstrap these days |
| 22 |
> without building C and C++. Even if you're not bootstrapping, the back and |
| 23 |
> middle ends are shared. You have to build them to build the front-ends. Maybe |
| 24 |
> you could cut out a couple of the target libraries, so you're really not gaining |
| 25 |
> much. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yes but if C & C++ was installed after it is built, distcc/ccache could |
| 28 |
be then used to build the Fortran & GCJ & so on. Of course, there's |
| 29 |
another matter of matching gcc versions between hosts but that's just |
| 30 |
another problem that needs addressing elsewhere. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Maybe I wouldn't gain much of Fortran. But if I recall correctly, gcj |
| 33 |
has a fair bit of C++ code to build. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
But after all, it's all purely theoretical. Unless we're going to patch |
| 36 |
gcc build system to make it more friendly. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> Anyways, assuming we can't split out fortran, would you be for or against |
| 39 |
> enabling it by default? I'm good either way. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Considering that it saves you like 5M? I'd rather keep it enabled. 5M |
| 42 |
won't save the day, while waiting extra 2 hours for gcc rebuild because |
| 43 |
some package needs Fortran is irritating. And I say two hours because, |
| 44 |
say, I had to enable USE=gcj earlier and now I have to rebuild that |
| 45 |
huge thing. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Best regards, |
| 49 |
Michał Górny |
Archives