On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, "Michael Mol" <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: >> > Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug report re: >> > emerge failure will be marked WONTFIX thanks to the 'ricer special' >> > CFLAGS >> >> The CFLAGS you showed me weren't any more ricer than "-O2 >> -march=native". (I didn't know that -D_FORTIFY=2 came from gcc) >> >> They wouldn't have a leg to stand on... >> > > Mine is: > > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -fomit-frame-pointer -floop-interchange > -floop-strip-mine -floop-block -funsafe-math-optimizations > -fexcess-precision=fast" > > If you tell me that's not a ricer's CFLAGS, then you've just made me a very > happy cat :-)
No, you've got some ugly flags in there. -fexcess-precision and -funsafe-math-optimizations, in particular. (I must have been talking to someone else last week; sorry, I'm terrible with names.) -fomit-frame-pointer shouldn't cause any headaches unless you're feeding a gdb stack trace, and you're not adding any debugging data, so your stack traces would be pretty useless, anyway. I don't know about -floop-interchange, -floop-strip-mine or -floop-block. I recognize at least one of them from the discussion of graphite the other day. However, if you get a *build-time* error that isn't, e.g. a tool crashing, then there's not *much* reason to doubt the bug report, IMHO. -- :wq
