Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

Harald van Dijk wrote: >> If the stubs were to be just removed say tomorrow, and breakage in the >> tree is still of such an extend that bugs starts to flood in again, its >> not just you that will have to read the mail. If the user is clueless, >> then Jakub have to reassign the bug to either too

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

(Not commenting on the whole message, just parts.) On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 03:46:24PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > You can however fix the tree to make sure it will fully build without > those flags, and then talk to Mike again about removing them. I am sure > he might be more willing if it w

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Saturday 08 July 2006 02:20, Harald van Dijk wrote: > I also mentioned it in a bugzilla comment, though admittedly not as a > question there. (The gcc 2 bug, I think.) Bugzilla comments are safe to > assume read, right? the gcc2 bug has a lot of things in there i need to review/merge so it's in

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 13:51 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 11:27:57AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 08:20 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 07:50:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Haral

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 11:27:57AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 08:20 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 07:50:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > > the ssp/pie/htb patches have their own

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 23:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 03:57:51PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:40 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > > Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 15:18 -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote: > On 7/7/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You want a pure 100% > > vanilla(POS) non working toolchain then go download it and > > compile it yourself. You will soon see why things exist the way > > they do.. > > LFS

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 08:20 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 07:50:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > the ssp/pie/htb patches have their own USE flags so separating them from > > USE=vanilla makes perfect sense ... >

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 07:50:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > I hope this is specific enough: toolchain.eclass revision 1.234 > > (separating ssp/... from vanilla) log message: > > "ssp/pie/htb have their own USE flags sep from vanilla, so

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Harald van Dijk wrote: > I hope this is specific enough: toolchain.eclass revision 1.234 > (separating ssp/... from vanilla) log message: > "ssp/pie/htb have their own USE flags sep from vanilla, so people can > utilize those" > when in fact the old USE=vanilla behavio

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 06:13:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > ignored *what* then ? you requested USE=vanilla control ssp, i said no and > i'll add support for USE=nossp ... you requested USE/stub control, i said no, > go delete the stubs USE=nossp existed before USE=vanilla did. To be sure

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Friday 07 July 2006 17:53, Harald van Dijk wrote: > 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

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

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

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

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,

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 03:57:51PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:40 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the > > > vanilla flag being removed all together..

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Friday 07 July 2006 12:53, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > If you take out the stub patches (which incidentally have no impact on > > code generation), many builds will simply fail because they expect the > > additional flags from ssp,

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On 7/7/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You want a pure 100% vanilla(POS) non working toolchain then go download it and compile it yourself. You will soon see why things exist the way they do.. LFS has always been based on a "vanilla" toolchain. Neve

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:40 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the > > vanilla flag being removed all together.. > > Is that a threat? If not, is there a reason behind this? Yes

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the > vanilla flag being removed all together.. Is that a threat? If not, is there a reason behind this? > You want a pure 100% > vanilla(POS) non working toolchain then go d

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 18:53 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 > > Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Thursd

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 > Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 wit

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 appp

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

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. > >

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

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 ...

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Thursday 06 July 2006 15:55, Harald van Dijk wrote: > I don't have a lot of trust in Gentoo's patches, as they have resulted > in completely and utterly unusable ld, and (minor) data loss due to a > miscompilation by Gentoo's gcc, in the past. historically i'd agree with you but i'm pretty confi

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Thursday 06 July 2006 15:56, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Selective and partial backporting of patches that leads to the C++ > standard library code getting broken? that patch was picked up by more than just Gentoo and then just as summarily punted -mike pgpmw8k1Bgvxk.pgp Description: PGP signat

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:56:31 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Selective and partial backporting of patches that leads to the C++ > standard library code getting broken? Obviously not an issue. Noone uses C++ anyway. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 04:03:26PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Harald van Dijk wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:42:20PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > >>On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:06:18 +0200 > >>Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>The GNU toolchain is not supported by Gentoo, a

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

Harald van Dijk wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:42:20PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:06:18 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The GNU toolchain is not supported by Gentoo, and in fact gets actively broken with unsupported command-line options. Only the GNU t

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:42:20 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:06:18 +0200 | Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > The GNU toolchain is not supported by Gentoo, and in fact gets | > actively broken with unsupported command-line options. Only the GNU |

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:42:20PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:06:18 +0200 > Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The GNU toolchain is not supported by Gentoo, and in fact gets > > actively broken with unsupported command-line options. Only the GNU > > toolchain

Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:06:18 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The GNU toolchain is not supported by Gentoo, and in fact gets > actively broken with unsupported command-line options. Only the GNU > toolchain as modified by Gentoo's toolchain guys is supported, > unfortunately. What