| 1 |
On 11/15/2017 10:50 AM, Jorge Almeida wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Are you really sure? I was under the impression that ebuilds did it, |
| 4 |
> and I find that natural. I didn't view that as a bug at all. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On principle, most things in the tree should respect whatever CFLAGS, |
| 8 |
LDFLAGS, etc. you ask for. The problems resulting from that are |
| 9 |
predictable: if you add "-ffast-math" to your CFLAGS and then start |
| 10 |
getting crashes; well, you asked for it. We're not going to fix that for |
| 11 |
you in every ebuild. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On the other hand, there are packages where some optimizations fail due |
| 14 |
to a compiler bug or something else that is not by design. Some packages |
| 15 |
optimize their critical path in assembly, and the resulting code doesn't |
| 16 |
play well with otherwise-reasonable CFLAGS. In cases like those, it's |
| 17 |
often simpler to disable the problematic flag in the ebuild rather than |
| 18 |
have a thousand people do the same thing locally. |
Archives