On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ryan Hill posted on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:11:12 -0600 as excerpted: > > > You may also want to test your packages with the new -Ofast option to > > be sure it doesn't have any hardcoded assumptions about -O flags. > > The release description I've read for -Ofast says it includes -fast-math, > among other things, a flag Gentoo has always strongly discouraged (you > break with it, you keep the pieces) and which can get bugs resolved/ > invalid as a result. > > Now that gcc 4.6 itself is more strongly supporting it as enabled with one > of the -O options, is that policy going to change, or is Gentoo going to > officially not support -Ofast, as well? I doubt we will. If a package breaks because of -Ofast there's really nothing we can do about it. It's not a bug in the compiler or the package, it's that you explicitly told it to generate non-standard-conformant code. -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
