On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 Duncan wrote: >> Ryan Hill posted on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:11:12 -0600 as excerpted: >>> You may also want to test your packages with the new -Ofast option to >>> be sure it doesn't have any hardcoded assumptions about -O flags. >> >> The release description I've read for -Ofast says it includes -fast-math, >> among other things, a flag Gentoo has always strongly discouraged (you >> break with it, you keep the pieces) and which can get bugs resolved/ >> invalid as a result. >> >> Now that gcc 4.6 itself is more strongly supporting it as enabled with one >> of the -O options, is that policy going to change, or is Gentoo going to >> officially not support -Ofast, as well? > > I doubt we will. If a package breaks because of -Ofast there's really > nothing we can do about it. It's not a bug in the compiler or the package, > it's that you explicitly told it to generate non-standard-conformant code.
obviously we will look at ICEs and such, but in terms of apps misbehaving at runtime, most likely we'll write it up as not a bug like Ryan says -mike
