| 1 |
Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Klavs Klavsen wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> The end result should be, that Gentoo automagically selects the optimal |
| 6 |
>> CFLAGS (in performance and stability - perhaps with some optimizations |
| 7 |
>> flagged as "unstable" so people can select "optimize for performance" |
| 8 |
>> vs. |
| 9 |
>> "optimize for stability") depending on the X, Y and Z from above. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> If you don't want to give gentooers a chance to set whatever they want |
| 13 |
> in CHOST,CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS it would be a mistake. Not everyone want |
| 14 |
> the greatest opimization for their processor! For example, I use on my |
| 15 |
> servers optimizations for pentium2 no matter what processor I have on |
| 16 |
> that particular computer. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
People could still have the choice to set whatever blanket optimisations |
| 19 |
they want, or even override the default C_FLAGS and CXXFLAGS as in |
| 20 |
package.use etc. Wouldn't this allow us to find optimal CFLAGS etc for a |
| 21 |
subset of the packages in Gentoo, and set default CFLAGS which could |
| 22 |
then be overridden? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I for one would be in favour of this. It could be a gradual process, may |
| 25 |
be added to profiles for different archs. With cascading profiles you |
| 26 |
could choose the profile with package specific optimisation, or a more |
| 27 |
generic profile with no package specific optimisations. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Not a Gentoo dev, but I for one think this is a great idea. I have seen |
| 30 |
this mentioned before, and I do believe that for certain packages this |
| 31 |
would be most beneficial. For other packages there may never be much point. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives