Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Jakub Moc]

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 toolchain or the package
>> maintainer.  If he could not determine it was due to the missing CFLAG,
> 
> The error is very clear:
>  cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-fno-stack-protector"
> 
> Maybe I have a little bit more confidence in people, sorry if that's
> misplaced. :)

Erm, yeah I can recognize the error, but it's really not very productive
to dupe the bugs over and over again. Killing the stubs breaks glibc
compile [1] and it breaks perl compile [2] as well.

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101471
[2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106965

I don't really see how is this a good idea to break two pretty critical
packages for users that have no clue what USE=vanilla does w/ gcc.

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

(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 will not steal his time again.

I ask again: would such patches be accepted? (Mike stated he would
remove stubs once GCC 4.1 is stable -- thanks -- so users wouldn't run
into problems often regardless.)

> Vanilla, Gentoo patched - they all have bugs which bugzilla have more
> than enough of in.

Ah yes, I see some that definitely apply to USE=vanilla builds. I'll see
if there's anything I can understand. :)

> OK, maybe I was just too dense to see it before, or maybe you kept
> dancing around the issue.  To put it clear (or try at least), your whole
> issue currently is that you cannot use a 'Vanilla' gcc (ie without the
> stubs) to build everything in the tree ?

No, being able to use vanilla GCC as Gentoo's system compiler would be a
nice addition, and if it's agreed as a good idea I don't mind helping
out with getting it working, but I can live without it.

> And not as much the stubs them selfs ?

Being able to check software for unofficial compiler flags is for some
cases a must.

I repeat: two separate issues. They keep getting mixed up here.

> I think you understood wrongly.
> 
> 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 toolchain or the package
> maintainer.  If he could not determine it was due to the missing CFLAG,

The error is very clear:
 cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-fno-stack-protector"

Maybe I have a little bit more confidence in people, sorry if that's
misplaced. :)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Mike Frysinger]

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 
my "little" TODO box

> > like i said in my previous e-mail, forcing stubs onto people even when
> > USE=vanilla *is by design* because i got tired of people who had no clue
> > about the consequences throwing USE=vanilla into their USE in make.conf
> > and then complaining when the lack of SSP broke things ...
>
> But I'm not asking for USE="vanilla" to disable SSP completely, I'm only
> asking for USE="vanilla nossp" to disable it. "nossp" is already
> explicitly documented as "NOT FOR GENERAL USE", too.

well, vanilla is marked the same way, yet people use it ;)

but as i said, i'll add 'use vanilla || apply_stub' logic once 4.1.x goes 
stable, just no sooner
-mike


pgpSz5fZ8qFvV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Martin Schlemmer]

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, Harald van Dijk wrote:

> > > > like i said in my previous e-mail, forcing stubs onto people even when 
> > > > USE=vanilla *is by design* because i got tired of people who had no 
> > > > clue 
> > > > about the consequences throwing USE=vanilla into their USE in make.conf 
> > > > and 
> > > > then complaining when the lack of SSP broke things ...
> > > 
> > > But I'm not asking for USE="vanilla" to disable SSP completely, I'm only
> > > asking for USE="vanilla nossp" to disable it. "nossp" is already
> > > explicitly documented as "NOT FOR GENERAL USE", too.
> > > 
> > 
> > No offence, but you are being very unreasonable in this thread.  The
> > fact that you can get what you are after, even though its not entirely
> > supported, should be enough for you, especially for the fact that you
> > are not clueless.
> > 
> > You should remember that somebody at the end of the day have to
> > sacrifice time and effort to fix bugs, and especially with something as
> > complex as gcc, the more variables, the more effort it is going to be.
> > And as Mike is relatively the only person currently who seems to
> > maintain gcc, it should be his prerogative to decided that he get too
> > much spam without the stubs.
> 
> Sorry, but how much mail he gets does not affect one bit which behaviour
> is better, it only helps understand why the lesser behaviour could be
> chosen by reasonable people anyway. (Regardless of which behaviour is
> the lesser one.) And I don't harass anyone about -- it's been a very
> long time since I even mentioned any problems like this, and if nothing
> is done after this thread dies, I'll likely be quiet about it for a long
> time again -- so please don't act like I do.
> 

Actually it does if it cuts back his time by a very large percentage so
that he cannot do the other things he wants/needs to.  I assume this was
the case if he added that in the first place, and still refuse to change
it.

> > > 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.
> > 
> > For the fact that we do not support vanilla gcc - I assume this is a gcc
> > built by yourself -
> 
> Actually, I meant gcc built with the vanilla flag here, as opposed to
> pure official GCC, which I already stated is unsupported earlier.
> 

Hmm, thought I might have had it a tad wrong.  I still though do not
understand what the whole fuss is about stubs for some 5 flags.  (which
is what you are left with with USE="vanilla nossp" currently if my
memory is correct).  Maybe read down a bit before replying here.

> > this truly is really unfair of you to expect it.
> > The 'contract' we usually have with upstream, is that if we apply
> > patches to their software, we will be the first tier in the support
> > chain.  Now you want to run gcc which was not modified by us to fix the
> > known hangups in how we do things - or save us time for that matter, and
> > you still want us to support it - or at least make life easier for us by
> > not leaving gaping holes that cost us maintenance time?
> 
> Differences between official GCC and Gentoo's GCC are 1) fixed bugs, and
> 2) added features. (Assuming no patches are broken.) I think it's
> reasonable to not rely on the existence of those added features.

I think its reasonable to no force the feature on you, but add the stubs
if it became a maintenance headache.  I am pretty sure it was not
toolchain who brought the whole situation about in the first place.

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 will not steal his time again.

>  You
> seem to think I think it's reasonable to not rely on bugs being
> fixed. No problem there, I don't.
> 

Not at all.  I thought you think its reasonable to just keep loading
work on other people - or possible did not see that that would have been
the end result.  More about this to the end.

> Besides, I said it's unfortunate that vanilla GCC (either one) is
> unsupported, not that it must be. My other problem, that vanilla
> GCC is different from Gentoo's GCC with the vanilla flag (plus maybe
> nossp/nopie/...), can be handled without requiring support for it from
> anyone.
> 

From the length of this email, and you not wanting to see the reasoning,
or not having started to fix the tree so that your wish can be full
filled, It rather sounded like you did demand it.  Or this was at least
the impression I got.

Also once again I do not see what the big issue with the stubs is.  You
keep making a big issue 

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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 USE flags so separating them from 
> > > USE=vanilla makes perfect sense ...
> > 
> > I'm not disagreeing with that, but removing an older option is not just
> > providing more choices.
> > 
> > > now you can do:
> > > gentoo patches + ssp
> > > gentoo patches + nossp
> > > vanilla + ssp
> > > vanilla + nossp
> > 
> > gentoo patches + ssp
> > gentoo patches + stub
> > vanilla + ssp
> > vanilla + stub
> > 
> > > whereas before you only had the option of:
> > > gentoo patches + ssp
> > > vanilla + nossp
> > 
> > gentoo patches + ssp
> > gentoo patches + stub
> > vanilla
> > 
> > > like i said in my previous e-mail, forcing stubs onto people even when 
> > > USE=vanilla *is by design* because i got tired of people who had no clue 
> > > about the consequences throwing USE=vanilla into their USE in make.conf 
> > > and 
> > > then complaining when the lack of SSP broke things ...
> > 
> > But I'm not asking for USE="vanilla" to disable SSP completely, I'm only
> > asking for USE="vanilla nossp" to disable it. "nossp" is already
> > explicitly documented as "NOT FOR GENERAL USE", too.
> > 
> 
> No offence, but you are being very unreasonable in this thread.  The
> fact that you can get what you are after, even though its not entirely
> supported, should be enough for you, especially for the fact that you
> are not clueless.
> 
> You should remember that somebody at the end of the day have to
> sacrifice time and effort to fix bugs, and especially with something as
> complex as gcc, the more variables, the more effort it is going to be.
> And as Mike is relatively the only person currently who seems to
> maintain gcc, it should be his prerogative to decided that he get too
> much spam without the stubs.

Sorry, but how much mail he gets does not affect one bit which behaviour
is better, it only helps understand why the lesser behaviour could be
chosen by reasonable people anyway. (Regardless of which behaviour is
the lesser one.) And I don't harass anyone about -- it's been a very
long time since I even mentioned any problems like this, and if nothing
is done after this thread dies, I'll likely be quiet about it for a long
time again -- so please don't act like I do.

> And you should really know by now that being documented as "NOT FOR
> GENERAL USE" will still not stop more than enough users to waste his
> time in telling them not to disable SSP with vanilla if they don't know
> what they are doing.

I guess that's a fair point.

> > 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.
> 
> For the fact that we do not support vanilla gcc - I assume this is a gcc
> built by yourself -

Actually, I meant gcc built with the vanilla flag here, as opposed to
pure official GCC, which I already stated is unsupported earlier.

> this truly is really unfair of you to expect it.
> The 'contract' we usually have with upstream, is that if we apply
> patches to their software, we will be the first tier in the support
> chain.  Now you want to run gcc which was not modified by us to fix the
> known hangups in how we do things - or save us time for that matter, and
> you still want us to support it - or at least make life easier for us by
> not leaving gaping holes that cost us maintenance time?

Differences between official GCC and Gentoo's GCC are 1) fixed bugs, and
2) added features. (Assuming no patches are broken.) I think it's
reasonable to not rely on the existence of those added features. You
seem to think I think it's reasonable to not rely on bugs being
fixed. No problem there, I don't.

Besides, I said it's unfortunate that vanilla GCC (either one) is
unsupported, not that it must be. My other problem, that vanilla
GCC is different from Gentoo's GCC with the vanilla flag (plus maybe
nossp/nopie/...), can be handled without requiring support for it from
anyone.

> Am I the only one feeling that this is really selfish/absurd thinking
> since you have such an hackle in what we do, to not research, debug, and
> file thus your own bugs with http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ ?

I actually do file bugs there when I run into them.

> The alternative to this that you seem to ignore, is that you can start
> helping maintaining gcc (I am sure Mike will appreciate help with
> Halcy0n gone as well, and me not having that much time currently).

Since I'm more interested in vanilla GCC, I think there's little to help
maintain from Gentoo's side (support in ebuilds, and possibly the build
process, that's it). If that's something you think help would be good
for anyway, th

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Ned Ludd]

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 up with is the 
> > > > vanilla flag being removed all together..
> > > 
> > > Is that a threat? If not, is there a reason behind this?
> > 
> > Yes.. When users or devs complain non stop when they 
> > don't understand something it leaves us with a few choices.
> > 1) put up with people not having a clue.
> > 2) remove the option so they can't bitch about it.
> > 
> > Option #1 is not fun as it pushes the hand on #2
> 
> Option 3: Enlighten me. I have explained why I feel the way I do, so if
> there's some big flaw in my understanding, please do correct it.

Sigh... I'm not going to sit here and bicker with you.
At the end of the day here is what matters.. 
Your giving Mike a hard time on the most vital of all 
programs in this distro and that just sucks so please stop and 
just be happy that the toolchain works as well as it does.

-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Ned Ludd]

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  has always been based on a
> "vanilla" toolchain. Never ran into issues. Of course, we do apply
> upstream patches when needed.

They patch gcc as needed also.

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs/

-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Martin Schlemmer]

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 ...
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with that, but removing an older option is not just
> providing more choices.
> 
> > now you can do:
> > gentoo patches + ssp
> > gentoo patches + nossp
> > vanilla + ssp
> > vanilla + nossp
> 
> gentoo patches + ssp
> gentoo patches + stub
> vanilla + ssp
> vanilla + stub
> 
> > whereas before you only had the option of:
> > gentoo patches + ssp
> > vanilla + nossp
> 
> gentoo patches + ssp
> gentoo patches + stub
> vanilla
> 
> > like i said in my previous e-mail, forcing stubs onto people even when 
> > USE=vanilla *is by design* because i got tired of people who had no clue 
> > about the consequences throwing USE=vanilla into their USE in make.conf and 
> > then complaining when the lack of SSP broke things ...
> 
> But I'm not asking for USE="vanilla" to disable SSP completely, I'm only
> asking for USE="vanilla nossp" to disable it. "nossp" is already
> explicitly documented as "NOT FOR GENERAL USE", too.
> 

No offence, but you are being very unreasonable in this thread.  The
fact that you can get what you are after, even though its not entirely
supported, should be enough for you, especially for the fact that you
are not clueless.

You should remember that somebody at the end of the day have to
sacrifice time and effort to fix bugs, and especially with something as
complex as gcc, the more variables, the more effort it is going to be.
And as Mike is relatively the only person currently who seems to
maintain gcc, it should be his prerogative to decided that he get too
much spam without the stubs.

And you should really know by now that being documented as "NOT FOR
GENERAL USE" will still not stop more than enough users to waste his
time in telling them not to disable SSP with vanilla if they don't know
what they are doing.


> 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.

For the fact that we do not support vanilla gcc - I assume this is a gcc
built by yourself - this truly is really unfair of you to expect it.
The 'contract' we usually have with upstream, is that if we apply
patches to their software, we will be the first tier in the support
chain.  Now you want to run gcc which was not modified by us to fix the
known hangups in how we do things - or save us time for that matter, and
you still want us to support it - or at least make life easier for us by
not leaving gaping holes that cost us maintenance time?

Am I the only one feeling that this is really selfish/absurd thinking
since you have such an hackle in what we do, to not research, debug, and
file thus your own bugs with http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ ?


The alternative to this that you seem to ignore, is that you can start
helping maintaining gcc (I am sure Mike will appreciate help with
Halcy0n gone as well, and me not having that much time currently).  And
of course promising so long as the stubs do not get applied with nossp,
that you will handle all breakage in that area.  Although I do not know
if its still really fair to expect Jakub et ell to sacrifice time to
process the bugs, and get them to you if its related to something
failing due to the missing stubs.



-- 
Martin Schlemmer



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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 people can
> >  utilize those"
> > when in fact the old USE=vanilla behaviour is unavailable now. You have 
> > never (as far as I know) answered whether it was intended to keep the
> > old behaviour as an option, and if it wasn't, why the log message is
> > what it is.
> 
> well i cant answer it if you havent asked it ... me not answering you on irc 
> when i'm not around does not constitute being ignored and anyone who relies 
> on irc in this respect really needs to learn more about irc

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 log message looks pretty clear to me, i dont see this "hidden message" 
> you're referring to
> 
> the ssp/pie/htb patches have their own USE flags so separating them from 
> USE=vanilla makes perfect sense ...

I'm not disagreeing with that, but removing an older option is not just
providing more choices.

> now you can do:
> gentoo patches + ssp
> gentoo patches + nossp
> vanilla + ssp
> vanilla + nossp

gentoo patches + ssp
gentoo patches + stub
vanilla + ssp
vanilla + stub

> whereas before you only had the option of:
> gentoo patches + ssp
> vanilla + nossp

gentoo patches + ssp
gentoo patches + stub
vanilla

> like i said in my previous e-mail, forcing stubs onto people even when 
> USE=vanilla *is by design* because i got tired of people who had no clue 
> about the consequences throwing USE=vanilla into their USE in make.conf and 
> then complaining when the lack of SSP broke things ...

But I'm not asking for USE="vanilla" to disable SSP completely, I'm only
asking for USE="vanilla nossp" to disable it. "nossp" is already
explicitly documented as "NOT FOR GENERAL USE", too.

>this is also the 
> reason i havent added USE=vanilla to glibc, too many users would simply break 
> their boxes

No complaints there. :)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Mike Frysinger]

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 behaviour is unavailable now. You have 
> never (as far as I know) answered whether it was intended to keep the
> old behaviour as an option, and if it wasn't, why the log message is
> what it is.

well i cant answer it if you havent asked it ... me not answering you on irc 
when i'm not around does not constitute being ignored and anyone who relies 
on irc in this respect really needs to learn more about irc

the log message looks pretty clear to me, i dont see this "hidden message" 
you're referring to

the ssp/pie/htb patches have their own USE flags so separating them from 
USE=vanilla makes perfect sense ... now you can do:
gentoo patches + ssp
gentoo patches + nossp
vanilla + ssp
vanilla + nossp

whereas before you only had the option of:
gentoo patches + ssp
vanilla + nossp

like i said in my previous e-mail, forcing stubs onto people even when 
USE=vanilla *is by design* because i got tired of people who had no clue 
about the consequences throwing USE=vanilla into their USE in make.conf and 
then complaining when the lack of SSP broke things ... this is also the 
reason i havent added USE=vanilla to glibc, too many users would simply break 
their boxes
-mike


pgpi4ug0sMzuq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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 I'm remembering
right, I checked `cvs log toolchain.eclass`. In order, probably skipping
a few steps:

1- No SSP
2- Choice between SSP [USE=-nossp] and stub patches [USE=nossp].
   USE=vanilla didn't exist.
3- Choice between SSP [USE="-nossp -vanilla"], stub patches
[USE="nossp -vanilla"], and nothing [USE="vanilla"]
4- Choice between SSP [USE=-nossp] and stub patches [USE=nossp]
   USE=vanilla exists but has no effect on SSP.

It was during 2 that I asked for a way to disable stub patches for
myself (and not as part of the official ebuild), and you said to delete
them. That was good enough for me during 2. We are now in 4.

> i dont see what else you're referring to ... be specific, vague claims only 
> lead to wasting of both our times

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 behaviour is unavailable now. You have
never (as far as I know) answered whether it was intended to keep the
old behaviour as an option, and if it wasn't, why the log message is
what it is.

> all bets are off now then ... with Halcy0n leaving us, that leaves me as the 
> only person maintaining the toolchain (there are few devs who contribute 
> fixes for their ports and it helps out a ton, but that doesnt really count as 
> being fully responsible for the toolchain packages).

I'll keep that in mind, I wasn't aware that the other toolchain guys
handle specific parts of the toolchain packages only. Even if I disagree
with some specific decisions, nice job overall, then.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Mike Frysinger]

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 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 ...
> > >
> > > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
> > > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
> > > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done
> > > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done
> > > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.
> >
> > it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your
> > request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go
> > with what we have now.  see how your usage of "ignored" is incorrect here
> > ?
>
> Actually, you did ignore. The below text refers to something older.

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

i dont see what else you're referring to ... be specific, vague claims only 
lead to wasting of both our times

> > > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if it
> > > is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be
> > > called "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this
> > > thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to
> > > complain about now.)
> >
> > you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont
> > really see how you could have expected this to be fixed already
>
> I didn't point that out to you, I pointed that out to another of the
> toolchain guys. I'm not completely sure who, but I think it was
> Halcy0n.

all bets are off now then ... with Halcy0n leaving us, that leaves me as the 
only person maintaining the toolchain (there are few devs who contribute 
fixes for their ports and it helps out a ton, but that doesnt really count as 
being fully responsible for the toolchain packages).  no more making 
retroactive claims when i wasnt involved ;P

i trust azarah to help out, but he's been busy in real life so i havent/wont 
ask him to contribute since i know he cannot (even if he wants to)
-mike


pgpo5gBd7Gxpr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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 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
> > > ...
> >
> > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
> > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
> > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done 
> > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done
> > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.
> 
> it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your 
> request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go with 
> what we have now.  see how your usage of "ignored" is incorrect here ?

Actually, you did ignore. The below text refers to something older.

> as Kevin pointed out, the stubs do not affect code generation so i preferred 
> to keep users from breaking themselves
> 
> also, at the time, i told you you could easily work around the stub situation 
> by simply deleting them:
> rm /usr/portage/sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/*
> and then add sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/ to your rsync exclude list

Yes, you told me this, before USE=vanilla even existed for gcc. When
there's no implicit claim that installed GCC is official GCC, it's much
less of a problem that it's not. Back then, I never complained that the
installed GCC wasn't the official GCC, only that (a manually installed)
official GCC wasn't a supported compiler. And I did not ask for an
official way to disable the stub patches then, I only asked how I could
do it for my own system.

> once we have 4.1.1 in stable, i'll be happy to update the eclass to not apply 
> the stubs when USE=nossp as the majority of users will no longer be in the 
> situation i referred to earlier

Thanks. I hope that if a similar situation comes up, ebuilds will use
test-flags instead of assuming the option is valid, though.

> > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem changing
> > > this behavior
> > >
> > > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now, i
> > > really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+
> >
> > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if it
> > is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be called
> > "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this thread
> > started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to complain about
> > now.)
> 
> you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont really 
> see how you could have expected this to be fixed already

I didn't point that out to you, I pointed that out to another of the
toolchain guys. I'm not completely sure who, but I think it was
Halcy0n.

> i'll update cvs when i get a chance

Thanks again.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Mike Frysinger]

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, gcc[vanilla] isn't a supported
> > > compiler in Gentoo.
> >
> > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of USE=vanilla
> > ...
>
> I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
> USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
> USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done 
> accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done
> deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.

it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your 
request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go with 
what we have now.  see how your usage of "ignored" is incorrect here ?

as Kevin pointed out, the stubs do not affect code generation so i preferred 
to keep users from breaking themselves

also, at the time, i told you you could easily work around the stub situation 
by simply deleting them:
rm /usr/portage/sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/*
and then add sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/ to your rsync exclude list

once we have 4.1.1 in stable, i'll be happy to update the eclass to not apply 
the stubs when USE=nossp as the majority of users will no longer be in the 
situation i referred to earlier

> > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem changing
> > this behavior
> >
> > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now, i
> > really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+
>
> I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if it
> is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be called
> "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this thread
> started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to complain about
> now.)

you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont really 
see how you could have expected this to be fixed already

i'll update cvs when i get a chance
-mike


pgpC3qwT1Y3nm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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..
> > 
> > Is that a threat? If not, is there a reason behind this?
> 
> Yes.. When users or devs complain non stop when they 
> don't understand something it leaves us with a few choices.
> 1) put up with people not having a clue.
> 2) remove the option so they can't bitch about it.
> 
> Option #1 is not fun as it pushes the hand on #2

Option 3: Enlighten me. I have explained why I feel the way I do, so if
there's some big flaw in my understanding, please do correct it.

> > > 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..
> > 
> > If you mean modifying the build system to actually work properly, then I
> > have no problem with that. USE=vanilla refers to runtime behaviour, not
> > the build system. (See use.desc.) Specifically, if patches are applied
> > that make sure GCC compiles, and those patches make sure GCC compiles to
> > the same program intended by the GCC devs at that release, those patches
> > are appropriate, IMO. None of the GCC patches I have problems with are
> > of this nature.
> > 
> > If you mean vanilla GCC + build fixes is unusable, then I'd appreciate
> > an explanation, because as far as I know, it can work just fine as a
> > system compiler, and plenty of people, at some times myself included,
> > use it as one.
> 
> You use the Gentoo modified one. Regardless of what USE= flags you have
> enabled you are still getting Gentoo behaviors.

Gentoo isn't the only system I use. I have used vanilla GCC + build
fixes, and I have been able to get a working system with it. So I'm
still waiting on your explanation of how it is unusable.

> Think vanilla-sources are pure? They are not. 
> They get patched as well with the minimal amount of patches required.

Interesting, and I did not know that, but looking at kernel-2.eclass
(which appears to be the only thing doing any modifying), the
modifications are all build system fixes, and won't affect the generated
kernel.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Mike Frysinger]

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, htb etc to be there.
>
> That's the point. I mentioned being able to test whether your own
> software compiles with a pure GNU toolchain as a desire. Being able to
> see whether unofficial compiler options are used is not just a nice
> extra, but even necessary for that.

as i said, this really is a non-issue considering SSP has been integrated into 
mainline gcc

> > Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then
> > that patch makes no difference to code generation.
>
> Yes, but if GCC_SPECS is defined in the environment

so what's stopping you from undefining it ?
-mike


pgpduWyurTvdI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Tushar Teredesai]

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. Never ran into issues. Of course, we do apply
upstream patches when needed.

--
Tushar Teredesai
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Ned Ludd]

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.. When users or devs complain non stop when they 
don't understand something it leaves us with a few choices.
1) put up with people not having a clue.
2) remove the option so they can't bitch about it.

Option #1 is not fun as it pushes the hand on #2

> > 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..
> 
> If you mean modifying the build system to actually work properly, then I
> have no problem with that. USE=vanilla refers to runtime behaviour, not
> the build system. (See use.desc.) Specifically, if patches are applied
> that make sure GCC compiles, and those patches make sure GCC compiles to
> the same program intended by the GCC devs at that release, those patches
> are appropriate, IMO. None of the GCC patches I have problems with are
> of this nature.
> 
> If you mean vanilla GCC + build fixes is unusable, then I'd appreciate
> an explanation, because as far as I know, it can work just fine as a
> system compiler, and plenty of people, at some times myself included,
> use it as one.

You use the Gentoo modified one. Regardless of what USE= flags you have
enabled you are still getting Gentoo behaviors.

Think vanilla-sources are pure? They are not. 
They get patched as well with the minimal amount of patches required.
-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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 download it and 
> compile it yourself. You will soon see why things exist the way 
> they do..

If you mean modifying the build system to actually work properly, then I
have no problem with that. USE=vanilla refers to runtime behaviour, not
the build system. (See use.desc.) Specifically, if patches are applied
that make sure GCC compiles, and those patches make sure GCC compiles to
the same program intended by the GCC devs at that release, those patches
are appropriate, IMO. None of the GCC patches I have problems with are
of this nature.

If you mean vanilla GCC + build fixes is unusable, then I'd appreciate
an explanation, because as far as I know, it can work just fine as a
system compiler, and plenty of people, at some times myself included,
use it as one.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Ned Ludd]

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 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 ... 
> > > 
> > > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
> > > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
> > > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done
> > > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done
> > > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.
> > 
> > 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, htb etc to be there.
> 
> That's the point. I mentioned being able to test whether your own
> software compiles with a pure GNU toolchain as a desire. Being able to
> see whether unofficial compiler options are used is not just a nice
> extra, but even necessary for that.
> 
> > Since they have no impact on code generation, their presence doesn't
> > impact comparisons with a pure upstream release.
> > 
> > > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem
> > > > changing this behavior
> > > > 
> > > > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now,
> > > > i really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+
> > > 
> > > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if
> > > it is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be
> > > called "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this
> > > thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to
> > > complain about now.)
> > 
> > Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then
> > that patch makes no difference to code generation.
> 
> Yes, but if GCC_SPECS is defined in the environment, I don't know enough
> about it to be sure that it interacts properly with -specs command-line
> options. Even if it works perfectly, though, the point remains that it
> does not belong in a USE=vanilla build.


Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the 
vanilla flag being removed all together.. 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..

-- 
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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 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 ... 
> > 
> > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
> > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
> > USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done
> > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done
> > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.
> 
> 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, htb etc to be there.

That's the point. I mentioned being able to test whether your own
software compiles with a pure GNU toolchain as a desire. Being able to
see whether unofficial compiler options are used is not just a nice
extra, but even necessary for that.

> Since they have no impact on code generation, their presence doesn't
> impact comparisons with a pure upstream release.
> 
> > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem
> > > changing this behavior
> > > 
> > > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now,
> > > i really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+
> > 
> > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if
> > it is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be
> > called "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this
> > thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to
> > complain about now.)
> 
> Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then
> that patch makes no difference to code generation.

Yes, but if GCC_SPECS is defined in the environment, I don't know enough
about it to be sure that it interacts properly with -specs command-line
options. Even if it works perfectly, though, the point remains that it
does not belong in a USE=vanilla build.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Kevin F. Quinn]

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 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 ... 
> 
> I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
> USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
> USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done
> accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done
> deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.

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, htb etc to be there.

Since they have no impact on code generation, their presence doesn't
impact comparisons with a pure upstream release.

> > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem
> > changing this behavior
> > 
> > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now,
> > i really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+
> 
> I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if
> it is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be
> called "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this
> thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to
> complain about now.)

Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then
that patch makes no difference to code generation.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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.
> 
> you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of USE=vanilla ... 

I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
USE="nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either done
accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done
deliberately with a misleading cvs log message.

> since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem changing this 
> behavior
> 
> besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now, i really 
> dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+

I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if it
is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be called
"vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this thread
started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to complain about
now.)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Mike Frysinger]

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 ... 
since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem changing this 
behavior

besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now, i really 
dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+
-mike


pgpIF6VkHyicH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Mike Frysinger]

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 confident that this has gotten 
a ton better with 3.3.6 / 3.4.6 / 4.0.3 / 4.1.1

> Also, being able to check 
> whether your own software compiles with a GNU toolchain is to me a good
> thing.

USE=vanilla
-mike


pgpq09DVaZYre.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Mike Frysinger]

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 signature

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Stephen Bennett]

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 vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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, 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 exactly is it about the toolchain supplied with Gentoo that causes
> >>you problems?
> >
> >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. Also, being able to check
> >whether your own software compiles with a GNU toolchain is to me a good
> >thing.
> 
> Isn't this why gcc et al support the "vanilla" USE flag?

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.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Stephen P. Becker]

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
toolchain as modified by Gentoo's toolchain guys is supported,
unfortunately.

What exactly is it about the toolchain supplied with Gentoo that causes
you problems?


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. Also, being able to check
whether your own software compiles with a GNU toolchain is to me a good
thing.


Isn't this why gcc et al support the "vanilla" USE flag?

-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

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
| > toolchain as modified by Gentoo's toolchain guys is supported,
| > unfortunately.
| 
| What exactly is it about the toolchain supplied with Gentoo that
| causes you problems?

Selective and partial backporting of patches that leads to the C++
standard library code getting broken?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Harald van Dijk]

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 as modified by Gentoo's toolchain guys is supported,
> > unfortunately.
> 
> What exactly is it about the toolchain supplied with Gentoo that causes
> you problems?

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. Also, being able to check
whether your own software compiles with a GNU toolchain is to me a good
thing.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

[Kevin F. Quinn]

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 exactly is it about the toolchain supplied with Gentoo that causes
you problems?

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature