Re: [gentoo-user] Re: memset_s

[R0b0t1]

Apologies for the double post,

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:41 AM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote:
> 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

https://bugs.gentoo.org/632315

Cheers,
     R0b0t1