On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:50:49 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote:
> On 31 May 2015 at 12:59, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > nice, but can't we add the lfs flags to our default toolchain flags > > or even better patch glibc headers to always redefine these > > functions to the 64bits variants? > > > > No, because that can easily break ABI of programs that actually want > the non-LFS one (for instance anything that wraps around function > calls, including but not limited to padsp, aoss, and similar > wrappers.) This seems easily fixed with an opt-out for lfs flags that such programs can use. They'll need to be touched to disable the QA warning anyway.
