On Friday 23 February 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 01:40 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > And I'd be fond of having all the -ffast-math filtering ripped out of the
> > tree as well.
>
> Except some things really do not compile with it enabled. Now, if
> you're meaning you'
On Freitag, 23. Februar 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Except some things really do not compile with it enabled. Now, if
> you're meaning you'd prefer patch every compilation failure using
> -ffast-math instead, then I'd say go for it. Patches are always a
> better solution than workarounds.
I
On Friday 23 February 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 01:40 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > And I'd be fond of having all the -ffast-math filtering ripped out of the
> > tree as well.
>
> Except some things really do not compile with it enabled. Now, if
> you're meaning you'
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 01:40 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> And I'd be fond of having all the -ffast-math filtering ripped out of the
> tree
> as well.
Except some things really do not compile with it enabled. Now, if
you're meaning you'd prefer patch every compilation failure using
-ffast-math
On Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2007, Timothy Redaelli wrote:
> What do you think about custom-cflags global USE?
I'd be pleased to see the flag removed. I think it's up to the maintainers, if
they accept bug reports due to custom cflags, even though upstream doesn't or
restrict them for other reasons.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:53:47 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Danny van Dyk napsal(a):
> | > What about making custom-cflags default in the base profile?
> |
> | Uhm? Maybe re-read the description of the flags? It's unsupported and
> | breaks stuff, that's wh
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:53:47 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Danny van Dyk napsal(a):
| > What about making custom-cflags default in the base profile?
|
| Uhm? Maybe re-read the description of the flags? It's unsupported and
| breaks stuff, that's why the use flag exists...
And not u
Danny van Dyk napsal(a):
> What about making custom-cflags default in the base profile?
Uhm? Maybe re-read the description of the flags? It's unsupported and
breaks stuff, that's why the use flag exists...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.p
Am Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2007 18:25 schrieb Timothy Redaelli:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:32:56 +0100 Timothy Redaelli
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | What do you think about custom-cflags global USE?
> >
> > I think it encourages policy violations.
> >
> > http
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:32:56 +0100 Timothy Redaelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | What do you think about custom-cflags global USE?
>
> I think it encourages policy violations.
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/user-environment/index.html
I know the pol
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:32:56 +0100 Timothy Redaelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| What do you think about custom-cflags global USE?
I think it encourages policy violations.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/user-environment/index.html
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
11 matches
Mail list logo
