On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 05:12:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk 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. > > it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your > request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go with > what we have now. see how your usage of "ignored" is incorrect here ?
Actually, you did ignore. The below text refers to something older. > as Kevin pointed out, the stubs do not affect code generation so i preferred > to keep users from breaking themselves > > also, at the time, i told you you could easily work around the stub situation > by simply deleting them: > rm /usr/portage/sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/* > and then add sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/ to your rsync exclude list Yes, you told me this, before USE=vanilla even existed for gcc. When there's no implicit claim that installed GCC is official GCC, it's much less of a problem that it's not. Back then, I never complained that the installed GCC wasn't the official GCC, only that (a manually installed) official GCC wasn't a supported compiler. And I did not ask for an official way to disable the stub patches then, I only asked how I could do it for my own system. > once we have 4.1.1 in stable, i'll be happy to update the eclass to not apply > the stubs when USE=nossp as the majority of users will no longer be in the > situation i referred to earlier Thanks. I hope that if a similar situation comes up, ebuilds will use test-flags instead of assuming the option is valid, though. > > > 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.) > > you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont really > see how you could have expected this to be fixed already I didn't point that out to you, I pointed that out to another of the toolchain guys. I'm not completely sure who, but I think it was Halcy0n. > i'll update cvs when i get a chance Thanks again. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
