Petr Vaněk writes:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 04:52:37PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
>> ulm points out that estack.eclass is particularly inefficient (although
>> it'll get slightly better once https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/31437
>> is fixed).
>>
>> Let's just manually roll it like
Hans de Graaff writes:
> On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +, Sam James wrote:
>> ulm points out that estack.eclass is particularly inefficient
>> (although
>> it'll get slightly better once
>> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/31437
>> is fixed).
>>
>> Let's just manually roll it like
On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +, Sam James wrote:
> ulm points out that estack.eclass is particularly inefficient
> (although
> it'll get slightly better once
> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/31437
> is fixed).
>
> Let's just manually roll it like llvm.eclass does.
It looks like that
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 04:52:37PM +0100, Sam James wrote:
> ulm points out that estack.eclass is particularly inefficient (although
> it'll get slightly better once https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/31437
> is fixed).
>
> Let's just manually roll it like llvm.eclass does.
>
> Bug:
ulm points out that estack.eclass is particularly inefficient (although
it'll get slightly better once https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/31437
is fixed).
Let's just manually roll it like llvm.eclass does.
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/908465
Signed-off-by: Sam James
---
