Re: Re: How is it possible ???

Chris Frey wrote:

>On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:09:52PM +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>  
>
>>While I certainly won't stop you from doing this, please keep in mind that 
>>there might be rather subtle bugs (depending on your cflags) that occur.
>>Also the current gcc streams (every release gets better) can and will produce 
>>broken code for certain uncommon code/flag combinations. For example sse2 
>>support is known to be an issue esp. with the older versions, but the newer 
>>versions also aren't perfect. As people use different compiler versions on 
>>different architectures (i386 is the best tested/most bugfree), many ebuilds 
>>need to be a bit conservative and filter out more common flags that are 
>>broken for this package.
>>    
>>
>
>This is interesting information, but perhaps there should be another flag (heh)
>that turns off this compiler flag modification, for those that really want
>to do it.
>
>I can see how stability is important and expected, especially in glibc,
>and this "how to get a stable build at all costs" info is important, and not
>to be lost.  But it would be nice to have the Gentoo cake and eat it too, :-)
>turning off this safety net when one really wants to experiment and perhaps
>help flush out the bugs that make this net necessary in the first place.
>
>Is there a way to do this easily and I just don't know it?
>
>Thanks,
>  
>
    File a bug for a feature request.  I'm sure it's not hard to 
implement.  The problem being not every ebuild uses flag-o-matic ( they 
might, I'm sure QA works hard to make sure ebuilds comform ).  Then we 
just edit flag-o-matic to not strip stuff if FEATURES="crazy" is set; or 
whatnot ;)

>- Chris
>
>
>--
>[email protected] mailing list
>  
>


-- 
Alec Warner
Spartasoft Secretary ( spartasoft.msu.edu )
Junior Computer Science
Michigan State University
[email protected]


--
[email protected] mailing list