Apologies for the double post, On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:41 AM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Jorge Almeida <jjalme...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:42 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> What I am wondering about is if C code which uses >>> __attribute__((optimize(...))) is against Gentoo package standards and >>> would have to be removed from the Portage tree. >>> >> >> >> You can set your optimization preferences in make.conf, and still an >> ebuild will override them if deemed unsafe. What would be the >> difference? >> > > Ebuilds are not supposed to do this, so if you file a bug report > citing that ebuild changes will be made (eventually?) to work around > it. > > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Grant Edwards > <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2017-11-15, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> What I am wondering about is if C code which uses >>> __attribute__((optimize(...))) is against Gentoo package standards and >>> would have to be removed from the Portage tree. >> >> Huh? >> >> Gentoo enforces standards for the source code of packages? >> >> "They" review the source code for the Linux kernel, Gnome, KDE, Qt, >> Chrome, Firefox, GCC, and 24670 thousand other packages and make sure >> they all follow Gentoo coding standards? >> > > To be consistent they would have to. Why I bring it up is that a > number of optimizations in eix were removed due to the logic I gave > above, despite there being no way to enable them without setting "-O3" > globally. > > Cheers, > R0b0t1
https://bugs.gentoo.org/632315 Cheers, R0b0t1
