On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 18:53 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 > > Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most > > > > > patches don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't > > > > > a supported compiler in Gentoo. > > > > > > > > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of > > > > USE=vanilla ... > > > > > > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of > > > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with > > > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done > > > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done > > > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message. > > > > If you take out the stub patches (which incidentally have no impact on > > code generation), many builds will simply fail because they expect the > > additional flags from ssp, htb etc to be there. > > That's the point. I mentioned being able to test whether your own > software compiles with a pure GNU toolchain as a desire. Being able to > see whether unofficial compiler options are used is not just a nice > extra, but even necessary for that. > > > Since they have no impact on code generation, their presence doesn't > > impact comparisons with a pure upstream release. > > > > > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem > > > > changing this behavior > > > > > > > > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now, > > > > i really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+ > > > > > > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if > > > it is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be > > > called "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this > > > thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to > > > complain about now.) > > > > Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then > > that patch makes no difference to code generation. > > Yes, but if GCC_SPECS is defined in the environment, I don't know enough > about it to be sure that it interacts properly with -specs command-line > options. Even if it works perfectly, though, the point remains that it > does not belong in a USE=vanilla build.
Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the vanilla flag being removed all together.. You want a pure 100% vanilla(POS) non working toolchain then go download it and compile it yourself. You will soon see why things exist the way they do.. -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
