Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

* Harald van D??k <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: hi, > What would it do if a gcc-specific option is used for which > the real compiler does not provide any option, even with a > different name? hmm, tricky. I've filed an bug in gcc-upstream for an similar issue, where gcc/ld is missing some a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 02:14:46PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > > > > Non gcc compilers have never been supported and probably never will be. > > If someone decides to work on that topic, IMHO the best approach > would be providing an gcc-style fron

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

* Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Where a package does run-time detection, there's no need for any > conditional compilation as they build for everything anyway, so such > packages wouldn't use mmx/sse/sse2 etc USE flags anyway. Well, there are still valid reasons: if you *know* you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

* Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Non gcc compilers have never been supported and probably never will be. If someone decides to work on that topic, IMHO the best approach would be providing an gcc-style frontend, so we actually get an drop-in-replacement (at least from the command line

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

* Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > echo | $(tc-getCC) ${CFLAGS} -dM -E - 2>/dev/null > > > Thoughts? Comments? > > How will you handle non-gcc compilers? Maybe it goes out of gentoo's scope, but I'm developing an universal toolchain wra

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

* Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Thursday 06 July 2006 13:00, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > The one advantage of using USE flags for this is that the support can > > be controlled very easily on a per-package basis. CFLAGS is much more > > of a system-wide setting. > There

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 2006-06-07 at 13:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:29:39 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | > Sounds rather flaky and unreliable... > | Sounds rather vague and without arguments

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-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On 2006.07.07 14:27, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:31 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > The more I think about the issue and the more I like the complete > profiles for amd64 more than the other solutions. I don't even *want* to think of what this would be for x86. These are what

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-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 13:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 17:31, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > As I pointed out on irc (to clarify), its still an issue even with > > gcc-3.4.6. Its just well enough filtered, and as Mike pointed out, they > > 'fixed' it in 3.4.5 via spec

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-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On 7/7/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's because CFLAGS="-msse" currently doesn't do what the user would think it does. Which is the real problem, which we're solving with the change Diego suggested. Well I certainly do *not* expect it to run configure with "--enable-sse". -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 17:31, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > As I pointed out on irc (to clarify), its still an issue even with > gcc-3.4.6. Its just well enough filtered, and as Mike pointed out, they > 'fixed' it in 3.4.5 via specs, and 3.4.6 by backporting patches from > 4.0.1 I think. For what I kn

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-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 16:03 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 15:53, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > Check Chris Gianelloni's mail just now. For some compilers with some > > -march's on x86 it did not explicitly turn on some features (or maybe > > not to such a high exte

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 15:53, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > Check Chris Gianelloni's mail just now.  For some compilers with some > -march's on x86 it did not explicitly turn on some features (or maybe > not to such a high extend). Uh no, I think he meant that for some borderline processors there's not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Marius Mauch wrote: >> That's because CFLAGS="-msse" currently doesn't do what the user >> would think it does. Which is the real problem, which we're solving >> with the change Diego suggested. > > Huh? What do you assume users think that CFLAGS=-msse does? > I know some people get confused by th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 15:21 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > Stupid question though ... does the gcc test thingy list __3dNOW__ on > > nocona ? I would think that it does, as there is no -march=nocona (or > > whatever) yet. > > There is a -march=nocona, and it doesn't de

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-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:13:09 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Curtis Napier wrote: > > I could find a million threads in the forums supporting what Ciaran > > is saying here. We have been told over and over and over until my > > head feels bashed in that MMX/SSE, etc... are NOT TO

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Chris Gianelloni wrote: [snip] This means it is now 36 profiles to support, if we dropped support on all profiles except for the new ones. Without having any sort of multiple inheritance available, this is really unmanageable. This is exactly the same reason why amd64 won't move to a per CPU

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:31 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > The more I think about the issue and the more I like the complete > profiles for amd64 more than the other solutions. I don't even *want* to think of what this would be for x86. These are what I can think of, so far, with regards to differe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Martin Schlemmer wrote: > Stupid question though ... does the gcc test thingy list __3dNOW__ on > nocona ? I would think that it does, as there is no -march=nocona (or > whatever) yet. There is a -march=nocona, and it doesn't define __3dNOW__. > So now you want to instead of fixing the amd64 pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stupid question though ... does the gcc test thingy list __3dNOW__ on > nocona ? I would think that it does, as there is no -march=nocona (or > whatever) yet. There is an -march=nocona (which I think was introduced in gcc 3.4) which works for both 3

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 05:31 -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 02:24:49PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:08 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > | No, we never spent years telling t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 04:28 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 03:15, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > x86_64 toolchain accepting 3dnow on a nocona arch? :) > > that isnt a cross-compile nor a different architecture > This is the whole point of my solution. > From what yo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 02:24:49PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:08 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > | No, we never spent years telling them not to use your so-called > > > | "CFLAGS hacks" that are ra

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:08 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > | No, we never spent years telling them not to use your so-called > > | "CFLAGS hacks" that are rather a proper usage of what the compiler > > | gives you. > > Wrong. We di

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Simon Stelling wrote: > Luca Barbato wrote: >> Alternatives: >> >> - as PPC we provide a default cflags & use tuned per certain cpu >> families using profiles, amd64 could provide a nocona profile that bans >> 3dnow* useflags. > > Not really. There are athlon64s and opterons with and without sse3

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Luca Barbato wrote: > Alternatives: > > - as PPC we provide a default cflags & use tuned per certain cpu > families using profiles, amd64 could provide a nocona profile that bans > 3dnow* useflags. Not really. There are athlon64s and opterons with and without sse3 support. The users who have an s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Curtis Napier wrote: > I could find a million threads in the forums supporting what Ciaran is > saying here. We have been told over and over and over until my head > feels bashed in that MMX/SSE, etc... are NOT TO BE PUT IN CFLAGS!! THAT > IS WHAT USE FLAGS ARE FOR > > Every developer who has

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-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 03:15, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > x86_64 toolchain accepting 3dnow on a nocona arch? :) > that isnt a cross-compile nor a different architecture This is the whole point of my solution. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, G

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 20:57, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > I'm just saying that I wouldn't discard entirely a solution just because > some unsupported software _might_ not work (note the conditional). I > wouldn't discard a solution just because it _might_ not work on > GNU/kFreeBSD; I woul

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 20:58, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 02:50, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > as for "broken binaries", i kind of doubt that statement ... when was the > > last time you saw a cross-toolchain accept assembly code written for a > > different architecture

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 02:50, Mike Frysinger wrote: > as for "broken binaries", i kind of doubt that statement ... when was the > last time you saw a cross-toolchain accept assembly code written for a > different architecture ? x86_64 toolchain accepting 3dnow on a nocona arch? :) -- Diego "Flame

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 02:46, Mike Frysinger wrote: > this sort of closed mindedness isnt really encouraging ... Err I actually thought if icc in the first place and tried to inform myself. I'm not the kind of person (and you should know) who likes breaking unsupported stuff. I think it's reasona

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 10:03, Simon Stelling wrote: > c) This is not about "regaining" control. Currently, users who want to > cross-compile are screwed and need nasty use.mask-hacks to not end up > with broken binaries. The inability to provide per-package CFLAGS is a > missing feature in portag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 07:48, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Thursday 06 July 2006 13:40, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > How will you handle non-gcc compilers? > > We don't support any, to start with. this sort of closed mindedness isnt really encouraging ... plus it's kind of funny, this st

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 02:08:57 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Friday 07 July 2006 01:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > With __PIC__ there's not much choice. Here there is. | | I would rather say that __PIC__ is guaranteed. *shrug* if you like. The __MMX__ things, howev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > I'm waiting to see a sample implementation tho, as that is what we should > base > on. > Assuming your cpuset it is just either ( use $1 && has_cpuset $1 ) or the other way around, nothing much to write. The more I think about the issue and the more I like t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 02:20, Danny van Dyk wrote: > Ehm, no. Athlon64 can also optionally include: sse3 (for latest > steppings) and xchg16 (which is a bit older already) That is the point, if they ask "-march=athlon64" they get the base athlon64. If you add "-msse3" (as you should if you have an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 02:01, Luca Barbato wrote: > Using a proper profile and not hardwire useflags to use amd64 is a > solution too. Yes it is, I would more likely see that than adding even more useflags to profiles. > > So using -march=i586 with mmx useflag wouldn't work anymore. > ...I don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Am Donnerstag, 6. Juli 2006 20:07 schrieb Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò: > > > rather than doing what the user says (aren't you always yelling at > > upstreams for doing that?) > > The user asks for athlon64 support? They get athlon64 (mmx, 3dnow, > 3dnowex, sse, sse2) Ehm, no. Athlon64 can also option

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 01:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > With __PIC__ there's not much choice. Here there is. I would rather say that __PIC__ is guaranteed. > In the VIS case, there are plenty of situations where GCC will think > that the underlying system doesn't do VIS (because that's the only way

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: >> * a large part of the justification is based upon a misunderstanding of >> how cross compilation should be done. The correct way around this >> problem was already posted to the thread by solar. > No I'm not misunderstand how cross compilation should be done with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 01:39:05 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > * it's relying upon non-guaranteed GCC internals. | | Not that internals, that part is guaranteed to work, or we cannot | consider guaranteed __PIC__ either, and we rely on that heavily. With __PIC__ there's

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-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Friday 07 July 2006 01:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Please try to keep this technical, even if your co-developers can't... You started this. > * it's relying upon non-guaranteed GCC internals. Not that internals, that part is guaranteed to work, or we cannot consider guaranteed __PIC__ either,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On 7/6/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Right now we have mmx, 3dnow, 3dnowex, sse, sse2 and so on useflags present in the tree, almost never used to get new dependencies, but usually used to supply econf switches. Hoping the S/N ratio here hasn't gotten too high... IMO

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:45:21 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thursday 06 July 2006 23:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > No, Diego. The argument is that you're coming up with a horrible and | > unnecessary hack where there are far cleaner alternatives, and that | > you'

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Jory A. Pratt wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:31:56 -0700 Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> | Or instead of throwing a hissy fit yourself about diego not agreeing >>> | with you..I don't know you could go and show the way that you feel it >>> | should be d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: [summary:provide a way to enable simd features by extracting them from the ones supported by the cflags selected and the compiler] Pros: - automagic : you just carefully select your cflags and your apps will have all the simd goodness you may dream/want/expect. - l

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:09:22 -0500 "Jory A. Pratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leaving aside the incoherent ad-hominem attack, could you please point out where the bullshit is? If you were referring to my post, I suggest you re-read Ciaran's first mail to this thread. He outlined at least two p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:31:56 -0700 Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | Or instead of throwing a hissy fit yourself about diego not agreeing > | with you..I don't know you could go and show the way that you feel it >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:31:56 -0700 Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Or instead of throwing a hissy fit yourself about diego not agreeing | with you..I don't know you could go and show the way that you feel it | should be done and show the technical merit. Ciaran I will give you | that y

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 23:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > No, Diego. The argument is that you're coming up with a horrible and > unnecessary hack where there are far cleaner alternatives, and that > you're blindly sticking to it and trying to throw off any objections by > devious means because you d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:31:56 -0700 Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or instead of throwing a hissy fit yourself about diego not agreeing > with you..I don't know you could go and show the way that you feel it > should be done and show the technical merit. He already has done. -- gen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Or instead of throwing a hissy fit yourself about diego not agreeing with you..I don't know you could go and show the way that you feel it should be done and show the technical merit. Ciaran I will give you that you are a capable programmer, and had v

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:12:51 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thursday 06 July 2006 22:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > You're not going to give in gracefully, huh? Ok, I'd like to ask the | > council to declare that abusing CFLAGS in the manner proposed in | > this th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 22:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > You're not going to give in gracefully, huh? Ok, I'd like to ask the > council to declare that abusing CFLAGS in the manner proposed in this > thread is a very bad idea. If you finished the proper arguments, the next one will be that it's all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 23:10, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > There's -march=pentium-mmx for this. I forgot about it, thanks for pointing it out :) -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpzOhSWFVsLH.pgp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:13:11 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note: -march=i586 -mmmx for Pentium (classic) MMX is a good idea most > of the times, as it's not an i686 but at the same time it has MMX > support. There's -march=pentium-mmx for this. -- Kevin F. Quinn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:46:31 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thursday 06 July 2006 22:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > Well, if you're playing that game, I'd suggest that anybody wanting | > to make proposals on this issue should know what CFLAGS is and | > understand

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 22:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Well, if you're playing that game, I'd suggest that anybody wanting to > make proposals on this issue should know what CFLAGS is and understand > how it is nothing other than a set of flags that are passed to the > compiler when compiling a C

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:13:11 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | So I would suggest anybody wanting to comment on these issue to know | the difference of using mmx in useflag and -mmmx in CFLAGS at the | moment. And then evaluate the change in behaviour. Well, if you're p

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-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 22:02, Curtis Napier wrote: > Every developer who has ever commented on one of these threads has > always agreed with that. Put it in USE not CLFAGS. Well it's not totally right. Putting them in CFLAGS, when using -march, is redundant, pure and simple. -march=athlon64 -ms

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-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:42:27 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" > > | > Setting CFLAGS and praying is not asking for something. Setting a > | > MY_X86_CPU_DOES_THIS_MKAY variable is asking for something. > | > | And if you know what your CPU does, is it that difficult to te

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 11:41:26AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 04:40 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > > echo | $(tc-getCC) ${CFLAGS} -dM -E - 2>/dev/null > > > > > Thoughts? Comments? > > > > How will you handle non-gcc compilers? >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 02:21:43PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Thursday 06 July 2006 13:58, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Well, there are enough in the tree > There are ebuilds for non-gcc compilers. There's no support in using them for > anything like building stuff. Let's think to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:42:27 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Not really. The __MAGIC__ is subject to change whenever any GCC | > person feels like it. | | It's not magic. But if you think that going by that trick you can | magically turn me in agreeing with you, good

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 20:29, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Incidentally, syncing CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS really isn't a good idea if > you want your C compiler to work and produce vaguely sane code. I never said to keep them _identical_ I have a set of common flags (between which I have my arch flags) an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:07:00 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thursday 06 July 2006 19:51, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > And for a single compile? | | I always leave the two of them in sync, even C++ apps might have | parts building CFLAGS. In case you know you're going

Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags

On Thursday 06 July 2006 19:51, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > And for a single compile? I always leave the two of them in sync, even C++ apps might have parts building CFLAGS. In case you know you're going to use only C++ is not difficult to use CFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS} has_cpuset 3dnow don't you think?

  1   2   >