Re: [gentoo-user] Re: memset_s

[R0b0t1]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@×××××.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:42 PM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote:
>> What I am wondering about is if C code which uses
>> __attribute__((optimize(...))) is against Gentoo package standards and
>> would have to be removed from the Portage tree.
>>
>
>
> You can set your optimization preferences in make.conf, and still an
> ebuild will override them if deemed unsafe. What would be the
> difference?
>

Ebuilds are not supposed to do this, so if you file a bug report
citing that ebuild changes will be made (eventually?) to work around
it.


On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote:
> On 2017-11-15, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote:
>
>> What I am wondering about is if C code which uses
>> __attribute__((optimize(...))) is against Gentoo package standards and
>> would have to be removed from the Portage tree.
>
> Huh?
>
> Gentoo enforces standards for the source code of packages?
>
> "They" review the source code for the Linux kernel, Gnome, KDE, Qt,
> Chrome, Firefox, GCC, and 24670 thousand other packages and make sure
> they all follow Gentoo coding standards?
>

To be consistent they would have to. Why I bring it up is that a
number of optimizations in eix were removed due to the logic I gave
above, despite there being no way to enable them without setting "-O3"
globally.

Cheers,
     R0b0t1