On Sun, 15 May 2016 21:35:41 +0200
rindeal wrote:
> apart from the tests, the patch now looks like this:
Please posts the tests too.
--
pgpudg4Ys0VCN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900
Aaron Bauman wrote:
> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:54:11 AM JST Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:52:09 PM JST Ian Delaney wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200
> > >>
> >
On Sat, 7 May 2016 23:25:58 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2016 21:19:31 + (UTC)
> "Joerg Bornkessel" wrote:
>
> > commit: 66afcab271f65b97330e610040ad3acc1b812a03
> > Author: Joerg Bornkessel gentoo org>
> > AuthorDate: Sat May 7 21:18:48 2016 +
> > Commit: J
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:08:48 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:06:29 -0700
> Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, maybe it's because you can talk to Python team, discuss and not
> > > get ignored by them.
> >
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:35:12 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:37:41 +0100
> "Justin Lecher (jlec)" wrote:
> > On 15/02/16 13:59, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:16:53 +0100
> > > "Justin Lecher (jlec)" wrote:
> > >> _isdp_big-warning() {
> > >> debug-print-f
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:58:10 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Well, if debugging is your only concern, on the system you're going to
> debug from:
> touch herds.xml
Don't do that.
rhill@tundra /usr/portage/dev-util/creduce $ repoman
RepoMan scours the neighborhood...
[INFO] checking package dev-uti
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:07:48 -0800
Daniel Campbell wrote:
> I see nothing wrong with discussing changes to parts of the tree that
> will affect other developers. Bugzilla is nice and all, but imo it's
> more of an AND thing instead of an OR thing. If the bug is already
> present, I see no real rea
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 10:21:40 +0100
"Justin Lecher (jlec)" wrote:
> On 02/02/16 23:36, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:08:28 +0100
> > Justin Lecher wrote:
> >
> >> while tracking down the following error when running "egencache"
&
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:08:28 +0100
Justin Lecher wrote:
> while tracking down the following error when running "egencache"
>
> GENTOO.GIT//eclass/wxwidgets.eclass: line 84: get_libdir: command not found
> GENTOO.GIT//eclass/wxwidgets.eclass: line 84: get_libdir: command not found
> GENTOO.GIT//e
e this for security sensitive data? You want me to use a
potentially unstable live ebuild instead? Well, no, that's not gonna happen.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
pgppyiHLotbfb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
r do a compile test or query
the compiler in some way to ensure the needed support is there. Look at the
fortran virtual and fortran-2 eclass for an example.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
pgphr6MQ7TfOv.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ters. Newest first is the usual order (e.g. it agrees with the
> default of git log), and ChangeLog having different order from
> ChangeLog-20* seems rather confusing to me.
I imagine it breaks emerge --changelog output as well?
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyep
exactly how these flags interact with each other.
Something like (emerge -pv):
ssl [ (openssl) libressl gnutls ]
- if USE ssl then pick one of, default openssl if none chosen
ssl [[ (openssl) libressl gnutls ]]
- if USE ssl then one or more of... etc.
But I suppose that's another topic.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
pgp616RCHiArF.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
uuid_by_uuid':
tcsps.c:(.text+0x3e8): undefined reference to `read_data'
bwm-ng.o: In function `main':
bwm-ng.c:(.text.startup+0x1d3): undefined reference to `get_iface_stats'
Rebuilding won't help with these of course.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtye
015/02/05/gcc5-and-the-c11-abi/
> https://blogs.gentoo.org/blueness/2015/03/10/the-c11-abi-incompatibility-problem-in-gentoo/
>
LGTM.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
pgp8sN8qTZUiO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
have to emerge -e
@world after this one or they could have a bad time.
FWIW I updated one system from 4.9 to 5.2 by rebuilding ~700 packages in random
order just to see how bad the ABI breakage would be and only ran into it once.
I may have just gotten lucky though.
--
Ryan Hill
> [0] I am pretty sure some arches will want to opt out of this
> scheme, at least for some more critical packages.
ALLARCHES shouldn't be used on critical packages.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4
ere, but what is this warning? A couple
days ago I started seeing it every time I sync even though I've yet to push
anything to git.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
p
't care. "Bug" gets the job done.
I don't care that much either. We never had URLs in the changelogs before so
it's not like we're losing anything.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 48
d to https://bugs.gentoo.org/333531 (or whatever
is decided on). That way everyone can use whatever they like best and it'll
all come out consistent.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 B
ognition. Try it out.
> 3. A lot of duplicated and useless information consumes time and
> space, irritating people.
Arg, that is so irritating how I have easily-clickable machine-parsable links in
my git log. Look at all the space we could have saved! How much time have I
wasted readin
I would like to see this be more common:
---
cat-pkg: Make the thingy work again.
Gentoo-Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/504321 or 504321 Idon'tcarewhich
If we're limiting the summary to 1 line, 70-75 chars, manditory cat/package
and bug number there's not a lot of room to summari
s URL
> > equivalent.
> >
>
> So, would this replace the bug number reference in the summary? Should
> we tell people to reference the bug only in the commit message description?
>
> Or do we say:
> * bug number in summary optional
> * bug number in description mand
. Bug number can be easily typed, URL has to be copied or
> generated by some tool.
> 3. Too many text, hard to read. Some bugs may refer to a dozen of
> URLs.
> 4. It is easier to copy a number, than selecting and copying whole
> string. Not all terminals support running browser on
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 13:22:43 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 08/09/2015 12:16 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 05:36:16 +
> > "Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 05:47:14PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >>&g
or the moment, they will re-open
> tomorrow.
So for someone who hasn't been following any of this, is there an idiot's guide
on how make the Gentoo?
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
pgpgeqSe7dvLl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
I just got this warning and had to do some digging to figure out where it
came from and what it wanted me to do. Can you add a comment to the eclass
(maybe a link to your mail which explained things well) and a pointer to the
eclass in the message?
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtye
In the meantime I don't want to be responsible for
holding up any work while I figure things out.
Thanks,
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
lone and shouldn't be considered an
"upstream" response.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
i686 crossdev toolchain on
x86_64 breaks things, it's because you've done something dumb. Stop doing
that and things should work better.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
are still in broken stage.
Do that and we'll have to take you out behind the woodshed.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
gt; dev/vapier (96 days ago)
> dev/dirtyepic (113 days ago)
> proj/gnustep (129 days ago)
> proj/alt (148 days ago)
Are only these being migrated? That's what the bug implies but I'm confused by
"all remaining repos" above.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirty
gt; should be encouraging people to add the flag and report bugs, and if a
> package doesn't work with it and doesn't strip it I think we should
> consider it a package bug now.
I think if a package breaks with any of the -f/-g flags that strip-flags
considers safe it's a legitim
y, but that's why we added 4.8.2-r1
half a year ago so people could test it. Did anyone actually try it out? I
honestly want to know - if no one is testing masked versions then there's no
point keeping them masked for as long as I usually do.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirt
a git repo. Actually migrating the tree itself to git is
> largely a solved problem.
Weren't we also waiting for some gpg signing stuff to land?
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
v2: Restrict by arch
--
Title: GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector
Author: Ryan Hill
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2014-06-10
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-4.8.3
Display-If-Keyword: amd64
Display-If-Keyword: arm
Display-If-Keyword: mips
Display
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:22:11 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
> > -fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
> &g
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:48:53 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 06/10/14 10:35, Magnus Granberg wrote:
> > tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
> >> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
> >>
> >> Ryan Hill wrote:
> >>>
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 04:31:27 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 18:16:02 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > Beginning with GCC 4.8.3, Stack Smashing Protection (SSP) will be
> > enabled by default.[..]
>
> .. on supported architectures.
>
>
>
Title: GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector
Author: Ryan Hill
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2014-06-10
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-4.8.3
Beginning with GCC 4.8.3, Stack Smashing Protection (SSP) will be
enabled by default. The 4.8 series w
turned it off long long ago (and I suspect many
already have).
Test coverage is a good thing, so it'd be nice to give people an actual
incentive to do it.
So +1.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 15 May 2014 07:21:58 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 14 May 2014, Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > I'm a lazy bum and I'm tired of rebasing patches that fail due to
> > whitespace. Is this doable or would it make the universe explode?
&
I'm a lazy bum and I'm tired of rebasing patches that fail due to whitespace.
Is this doable or would it make the universe explode?
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49
conflict, or the former disable the latter implicitly. As Rich noted,
> we do not enable distcc by default so there's no reason why we can't
> enable conflicting options by default.
Probably best to make FEATURES=distcc disable network-sandbox then. People
enabling it a
On Mon, 12 May 2014 11:39:10 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2014 00:47:17 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > > 1. cgroup -- puts all processes spawned by ebuild to cgroup, and
> > > kills all of them once phase exits (prevents leaving orphans),
> > &g
y these features? Maybe we can add them to
the dev profiles for a while before we dump it on everyone.
Otherwise +1.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 08:45:31 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> > One thing I forgot to mention - LTO can also have detrimental effect on
> > certain architectures. On some (eg. ppc), performance can actually
> > be degraded due to increased
stream developer mentioned it wasn't
expected to work.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:14:51 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> As more and more packages are starting to add LTO flags automatically through
> their build systems, I thought I'd point out a couple things:
>
> - LTO utterly destroys debug info. Flags like -g ar
ey're available, but
you'll generally have to do the legwork. And like I said, most aren't going
to be backportable.
Please take these things into consideration when deciding whether or not this
feature is worth it.
Thanks.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: di
IX}/usr" \
> "${libdir}" \
> "$@" \
> configure || die "configure failed"
> else
> - CCFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" LINKFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}" "${WAF_BINARY}" \
&
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 15:50:17 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:09:53 -0500
> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > wxGTK not only splits up libraries by version and toolkit, but also by
> > >
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 16:09:53 -0500
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 14:57 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > wxGTK not only splits up libraries by version and toolkit, but also by
> > charset and debug/release. If we had to use different SLOTs rather than
> > US
LOTs rather than USE flags we
would need eight of them for 2.8 alone. And I don't know how we would name the
ebuilds (-r100,-r200,... ugh).
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:26:18 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Bye bye distribution level consistency :-(
The last time we had distribution level consistency was the moment between the
first and second packages getting committed to the tree.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic
y revision numbers to make up for the fact that you can't
install multiple SLOTs of the same version of a package is a fucking
travesty.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
nd the last option isn't actually feasible because
everything in the eclass/eselect is tied directly into the SLOT.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e people time to update overlays afterwards. It
won't be hard to move to 4 after that but it'll need another deprecation cycle.
You'll have to ask Mike about glibc and binutils.
Personally I think we should always keep the latest three EAPIs around, so 4, 5,
and 6 (and 0).
--
Ryan
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 01:53:47 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> While I'm adding USE defaults to toolchain.eclass and moving them out of the
> profiles, I thought now would be a good time to review a couple default flag
> settings.
Okay, we'll be dropping fortran from the profiles a
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:08:18 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-01-12, o godz. 03:50:53
> Ryan Hill napisał(a):
> > Bootstrapping makes distcc impossible, and you can't bootstrap these days
> > without building C and C++. Even if you're not bootstrapping, the
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:24:20 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-01-12, o godz. 01:53:47
> Ryan Hill napisał(a):
>
> > fortran:
> > Do we want to keep enabling fortran by default? The majority of users will
> > never get the urge to install a fortran pack
en we need to emerge some package some time?
I think for most people the number of times they've upgraded gcc far outweighs
the number of times they've had to rebuild it to install a fortran package.
We should optimize for the common case.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyep
y default? The majority of users will
never get the urge to install a fortran package, and the fortran eclass handles
those that do. I think it should be treated as all the other optional
languages and disabled by default, but I'd like to know if there are other
opinions.
--
Ryan Hill
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:08:02 -0500
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 01/10/2014 10:50 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Having slept on it I'm starting to agree. My first argument was that on
> > hardened ssp is -fstack-protector-all, which is much more expensive, and it
>
-fno-stack-
> protector) in glibc's common.eblit is fixed to.
Cool, I forgot about that. ;)
> So default ssp is out in the tree :)
FYI it's masked for testing for now. I will send out a news item
soon.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain
his patch, not saying it has to be this
> second, but I see this use flag as a small example of things in
> toolchain which could probably be cleaned up if fresh eyes were to see
> things.
Yes, and believe it or not I appreciate the input. I know I'm stubborn as hell
but eventually c
quot;
-PIE_VER="0.5.8"
+PIE_VER="0.5.9-ssptest"
BTW Magnus, thanks for doing this.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:30:46 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:29:26 -0500
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 01/09/2014 05:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:41:08 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:30:04AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2014, 00:26:03 schrieb Ryan Hill:
> > >
> > > > Please avoid "noblah" use flags.
> > > >
d
prefer it but I don't have a good reason.
What gcc-config profiles get installed after this patch?
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
actually want to rebuild whole gcc just to do some testing on a single
> > package...
> >
> Or just as easily set -fno-stack-protector in CFLAGS in make.conf.
>
> I never felt manipulating cflags with use flags was a great idea, but in
> this case is does feel extra poi
> ssp flag that defaults to on is fine.
This flag already exists and has always worked this way. We don't have USE
defaults yet.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 00:53:17 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > In case it's helpful here's what FOSSology[1] has to say about some
> > common packages that people have uploaded to their demo server.
>
&g
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:07:22 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:20:09 -0500
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Personally I don't have any use for ACCEPT_LICENSE at all, and having
> > to specify the LICENSE for every single package in the tree is a lot
> >
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:20:09 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > That's only possible if we enumerate every license in every distfile we
> > distribute, which I don't think is a good idea. Or at least not on the
> >
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:10:54 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 02/01/14 07:50 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we could add RESTRICT=srcdist which would cause ebuilds to
> > save their distfiles in a separate directory controlled by
> > PORTDIR_NODIST or something
gt; are under the same legislation, which may affect their choice.
Well, your subject line says "srcdist" ;).
That's only possible if we enumerate every license in every distfile we
distribute, which I don't think is a good idea. Or at least not on the
basis of a theoretic use
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 06:50:06 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I've always believed that when it comes down to it all Gentoo basically does
> is provide a link to some source code and a script to build and install it.
> Unless we violate someone's license by redistributing that sour
h non-distributable stuff in
your distfiles.
Maybe we could add RESTRICT=srcdist which would cause ebuilds to save
their distfiles in a separate directory controlled by PORTDIR_NODIST or
something. If the variable is unset then it's business as usual.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Go, I will sumarise why Portage and
> Go do not play well together.
What's wrong with gccgo? (serious question, other than making sure it builds
I haven't used it).
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864
ut to annoy some people, and then add
> a passive-agressive Changelog entry?
>
> Fix your workflow, man ... and don't cause useless warning spam if you
> can avoid it.
Oh FFS it's a USE flag. You guys have bigger fish to fry.
--
Ryan Hillpsn:
w that we have a version of gcc that at least understands the flag in
stable at least it wouldn't instantly break everything.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
.@gentoo.org allows users to effectively
>help us out as well by marking bugs they consider old.
>
>Another reason might be that we can assign related trackers to it.
Well, once you touch an old bug it won't be old anymore, so you're going to
need some way of keeping t
s, and others thought it was a good idea, but it was
always up to the discretion of the maintainer back then.
I'm not one of the offenders, just pointing out maybe some people missed the
policy change as I did.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain
Is anyone interested in maintaining poedit? It's currently covered by
wxwidgets and I check in on it a couple times a year for bumps/stabilization,
but I don't use it myself. Feel free to add yourself or take it over if you're
interested.
Thanks.
--
Ryan Hill
ttle
> problems to our users. The other hardened features, however, have more
> of an impact and probably don't belong in vanilla as already discussed.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/484714
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo
completely wrong about this. The hardened flag
filtering in flag-o-matic dumps the compiler specs (the rules that
determine what flags to use) to check if hardened features are enabled
and only negates them if they are. The quick hack I did for my testing was
failing that check so the flags w
..." whenever they try to use
> upstream as an excuse to hold back progress. ;)
In this case it seems every other distro is already doing this, so we're in
good company.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:21:35 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > So does anyone have any objections to making -fstack-protector the default?
> > Now is the time to speak up.
>
> So, in this world of all-or-nothing we want pe
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:05:16 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > In any case this is a firm no.
> > The increase in loading times for apps that link lots of libraries is
> > significant (if it wasn't, we wouldn't need lazy loading :p).
&g
otector the default?
Now is the time to speak up.
(and for the record I've changed my mind and would like to see this go forward,
so please stop emailing me)
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:10:42 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> > * -fstack-protector{-all}
> > No thank you. -fstack-protector has very limited coverage
>
> I'd say it covers most cases where bugs can be made,
> practically without a
In addition to these we also enable -Wtrampolines and warn on DT_TEXTRELs.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
gt; optimization levels or so I saw reported.
I don't see how that could happen without -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns. Can
you dig up a link?
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 9
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:13:13 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 13/08/13 03:41, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I don't see any reason to keep this masked other than bug #416069, which
> > needs to be fixed anyways. How does Friday sound?
> >
> > https://bugs.gento
I don't see any reason to keep this masked other than bug #416069, which
needs to be fixed anyways. How does Friday sound?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/416069 xorg-2.eclass: add --disable-selective-werror
to configure
https://bugs.gentoo.org/461954 GCC 4.8 porting
--
Ryan
obal and local flags had to be exclusive so you had to be careful about the
wording. Nowadays where you can have a local description override a global
one it's less important, but not completely so.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gen
you can really do is warn people
they may run out of space if they're using debugging options.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ng for a crash, it might
> magically disappear (memory areas get cleared out at -O0 but they might be
> re-used without clearing at any other -O level).
If you're feeling adventurous you could try -Og -g with gcc 4.8.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/t
>(usually generic) messages mean.
>
> Nobody seemed to be against setting LC_MESSAGES in make.conf.
> I reported a bug now.
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/478382
I've been pretty vocal against this in the past so I just wanted to say I
have no problem setting a default in ma
1 - 100 of 906 matches
Mail list logo
