"Geoffrey Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > i noticed that RPM_OPT_FLAGS have now got -ffast-math turned on. i
> > > > > thought that breaks ANSI specifications just to get
> > optimizations ? i
> > > > > don't think that it is a good idea to pass to gcc...
> > > >
> > > > titi / guiseppe ?
> > >
> > > it doesn't really break ANSI spec, it just make some assumptions ...
> > > (like non negative number for sqrt, ...)
>
> are you sure??
>
> taken from info gcc:
[...]
> i'm not saying that you shold not use -ffast-math , but only use it if there
> is some significant optimization ...(mabye mesa, gimp ...)
>
> i like Giuseppe's idea where you have CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -ffast-math" or
> CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -ffast-math".
>
> seems fair?
the problem is that, since bero, we use it...
anyway, if an application call sqrt without checking or make sure its argument won't
be positive is just bogus.
> one last thing: doesn't rpm now require bzip >= 1.0 to build, or am i wrong
> about that ?
>
>
> i once tried compiling 3.0.4 with bzip2 1pre, and it barfed...
i've patched bzip2 and chmou patched rpm ....
