On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:03:47 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > Well, you're assuming that a) everyone's using a C compiler, b) that | > gcc has the slightest clue what it's doing, c) that the user has no | > problem using nasty hacks to regain control, d) that this | > information is only needed at compile time, e) that various gcc | > internal definitions won't change... You're adding a lot of | > complexity, and thus room for very weird breakages, to something | > that doesn't need it. | | as for... | | b) You kind of have to assume that when running a system that was | compiled from ground up with gcc
Not really true. GCC can be quite happily wrong about what your CPU could support, so long as it's not told to use it. This happens with VIS, for example. | 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 portage, it's got nothing to do with this | issue. You can do it through bashrc. But then, if this is about working around Portage's annoying lack of sane cross compile handling, why not put a little effort into fixing it properly rather than a lot of effort into making the tree more complicated? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
