On 2017-11-15, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies for the double post,
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:41 AM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Jorge Almeida <jjalme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:42 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> What I am wondering about is if C code which uses
>>>> __attribute__((optimize(...))) is against Gentoo package standards and
>>>> would have to be removed from the Portage tree.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can set your optimization preferences in make.conf, and still an
>>> ebuild will override them if deemed unsafe. What would be the
>>> difference?
>>>
>>
>> Ebuilds are not supposed to do this, so if you file a bug report
>> citing that ebuild changes will be made (eventually?) to work around
>> it.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Grant Edwards
>> <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-15, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I am wondering about is if C code which uses
>>>> __attribute__((optimize(...))) is against Gentoo package standards and
>>>> would have to be removed from the Portage tree.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> Gentoo enforces standards for the source code of packages?
>>>
>>> "They" review the source code for the Linux kernel, Gnome, KDE, Qt,
>>> Chrome, Firefox, GCC, and 24670 thousand other packages and make sure
>>> they all follow Gentoo coding standards?
>>>
>>
>> To be consistent they would have to. Why I bring it up is that a
>> number of optimizations in eix were removed due to the logic I gave
>> above, despite there being no way to enable them without setting "-O3"
>> globally.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> R0b0t1
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/632315
I don't see how that's relevent. That bug is about use flags and
ebuild stuff, not about the C code inside a package's source files.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Half a mind is a
at terrible thing to waste!
gmail.com
