Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Piotr Szymaniak
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:03:01PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time to take a look at them. https://bugs.gentoo.org/390247 There's an ugly bug [1]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:58:08 +0100 Piotr Szymaniak szar...@grubelek.pl wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:03:01PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time to

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: Though people that use -ffast-math / -fLTO / -fuse-linker-plugin should be on their own, thus I drop -ffast-math because it breaks my browser; but that doesn't mean that those ricer flags should stop stabilization. If we're

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 25/02/2013 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote: That isn't the same as saying that we can just break it in cases where it actually is appropriate. Calculating scroll bar movement is exactly the sort of thing that this flag was actually designed for - you don't care if it is off by 1/100th of a

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: On 25/02/2013 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote: That isn't the same as saying that we can just break it in cases where it actually is appropriate. Calculating scroll bar movement is exactly the sort of thing that this

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 25/02/2013 22:57, Rich Freeman wrote: A sword that cuts two ways - judging understanding by an email is a dubious proposition, otherwise we wouldn't need job interviews. :) It is just as likely that we're simply miscommunicating. Did you not just say there: Calculating scroll bar movement

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: Of course dealing with flags _per functions_ is not possible, as flags apply at the very least to a translation unit... A translation unit can contain a single function, or a bunch of functions that you want to

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Luca Barbato
On 25/02/13 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: Though people that use -ffast-math / -fLTO / -fuse-linker-plugin should be on their own, thus I drop -ffast-math because it breaks my browser; but that doesn't mean that those ricer

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Luca Barbato
On 25/02/13 23:21, Rich Freeman wrote: My point was just that: 1. No, the fact that entire packages fail to build/operate using -ffast-math is not a valid bug. From your email the message was the opposite, maybe a not got lost? 2. If individual packages DO carefully use -ffast-math and

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 25/02/2013 23:21, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: Of course dealing with flags _per functions_ is not possible, as flags apply at the very least to a translation unit... A translation unit can contain a single

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 25/02/13 23:21, Rich Freeman wrote: My point was just that: 1. No, the fact that entire packages fail to build/operate using -ffast-math is not a valid bug. From your email the message was the opposite, maybe a not

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-25 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: No, an example of _how building a whole package with -ffast-math_ was brought up, and you turned it into something that it should apply to (which is false, and stupid to say). Perhaps this is part of the issue

[gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-24 Thread Ryan Hill
I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time to take a look at them. https://bugs.gentoo.org/390247 -- gcc-porting toolchain, wxwidgetslearn a language baby, it's that kind of

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-24 Thread Alex Alexander
On 25 Feb 2013 06:53, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time to take a look at them. https://bugs.gentoo.org/390247 Can't you just smell all

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2013-02-24 Thread Matthew Thode
On 02/24/13 23:45, Alex Alexander wrote: On 25 Feb 2013 06:53, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote: I'm going to be unmasking 4.7.2 later this week. There are still 47 open bugs blocking the 4.7 tracker, so if any are yours now would be a good time to take a look at them.

[gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking

2012-09-29 Thread Ryan Hill
I just added gcc-4.7.2 to the tree, and I'd like to unmask it in a couple weeks. I don't see anything I'd consider a blocker on the tracker*, but 95 open bugs is still a lot. If you have a bug blocking the tracker please take a look at it soon. Many of these are trivial and could make good