Extreme CFLAGS problems...

mcspiff · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 24 Oct 2004 Posts: 109

My post was intended to be read with just a hint of sarcasm, which probably wasnt obvious. Its not that i dont understand why some people want to drop cflags filtering and just let whatever happen during the compile happen. Believe me, i feel the ricers are killing gentoo more than SCO or microsoft ever could hope. But sadly just letting them shoot themselves in the foot just isnt good systems design. Id hate to fuel the anti-gentoo fires by intentially breaking portage.

So why not inform the user that they are nuts, and disable compileing with those flags. Have this behivor be controlled by a setting in make.conf (or somewhere more hidden :wink:

)

ciaranm · Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:27 pm Post subject:

mcspiff · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 24 Oct 2004 Posts: 109

And dropping Cflags filtering wont get said hissy fight?

Lokheed · Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:36 pm Post subject:

truekaiser · l33t Joined: 05 Mar 2004 Posts: 801

mcspiff · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 24 Oct 2004 Posts: 109

Im going to outline this very clearly lockheed.

Not checking input from the user is bad. This is espically bad if it disruptes the fundemental functions of the program. This leads to security problems, segfaults and other nasties. Most programmers will tell you, either ignore the input if its non-vital, in the case with Cflags or die with a helpful error message.

If the user does not want this default, correct behivor, provide an option to over ride this error checking. If you do not, people with either realease "faster" ebuilds or copies or portage with the error checking disabled. This does help anyone.

If a user is not willing to listen to these forums, nothing can stop him from using his two pages of Cflags. At best, we can help those who were merely told to use these Cflags.

Lokheed · Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:56 pm Post subject:

mcspiff · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 24 Oct 2004 Posts: 109

I had a long winded reply, but my browser crashed
For your first paragraph, yes have portage trim back to a list of safe Cflags

For your second, how does this make more work for anybody? its obvious there is a very small list of safe flags. Have portage filter everything else out. No mess no fuss. Saves developers time, as Cflags will no longer be the prime cause of bug reports. If someone wants to waste their time generating a three page Cflags list, with only 4 or 5 sane ones actually being used by portage and then rest silently being ignored, no one is harmed, and the ricer class will soon die out as people realize that all their magical flags are simply ignored.

wdreinhart · Guru Joined: 11 Jun 2003 Posts: 569 Location: 4QFJ12345678

Lokheed · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:22 am Post subject:

Exactly what wdreinhart said. mcspiff, what's the point of giving this false sense of control to a user when 95% of USE Flags do nothing because they are filtered out, why then should we keep them in circulation? Whats the difference from elliminating the CFLAGS or filtering them out so they cannot be used?

The more you write the more you lose me. But that is not a solution to simply hide some setting somewhere to filter all of them out...besides its not as simple as that as its been stated. Some can use O3 and others cant, some can use -fomit-frame-pointer and some cant...its not as simple to filter out CFLAGS as you think as some do benefit some packages...but whatever, I said me piece, dont need to say anymore...

Conclusion=Ricers just plain suck.

lightvhawk0 · Guru Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 388

i've always just manually edited all the ebuilds making sure my cflags will work and I always read the bug reports making sure that I don't repeat a mistake. IE -fstack-protector-all kills python so I don't use it with python.

So I'd like to try and think of ways to make it so you can use your cflags and have the documented "bad" flags for that ebuild together, not filtered just in a place where you can check it and go "oops I'm a dumbass it's documented here that this flag breaks this package, duh"

Also this would help let us know when a cflag becomes usable again.

I'm gonna stick to this idea because I think it would be helpful to help the ricers , sane people and developers.

or even the idea of a package.cflags where you can use specific cflags for an application, like encoding makes heavy use of the fpu, you you could store some useful fpu sensitive cflags there.

and if this is just a cry in the dark at least sombody saw it :wink:

_________________
If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. - Voltaire

macawgumbo · Apprentice Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 165

I have a computer acting as a server with command line only. It is running with an AMD K6-2 500MHz proc and needs to be as fast as possible with the cflags and etc.

spb · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:40 pm Post subject:

virtual · Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 12:07 pm Post subject:

Hi,

These are my CFLAG settings and I have no problems, but I use KDE only except for gdm.

LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--enable-new-dtags"
CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium4 -pipe -ffast-math -fforce-addr -fomit-frame-pointer"
CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"

My use flags:
USE="-gtk -gnome -f77 -fortran -oss qt kde dvd alsa cdr cups foomaticdb ppds usb nptl mmx sse sse2 pic doc"

I use gcc 3.4.3 and prelink. I think and hope these are optimal because I do not know what else can be done to increase performance. All hints are welcome. Why do many people write down every flag they use when most of the time they are implied by the -O2 or -O3 except for the -fomit-frame-pointer on the x86 arch.
_________________
The roots of education are bitter but it's fruit is sweet.

rhill · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:08 pm Post subject:

tnt · Veteran Joined: 27 Feb 2004 Posts: 1222

I've compiled my system with a lot of CFLAGS and had a lot of segfaults and hard lock-ups. Now that I've read this thread I want to switch to simple:

gentoo_lan · Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 4:52 pm Post subject:

I would do an:

tnt · Veteran Joined: 27 Feb 2004 Posts: 1222

OK, but can you just tell me why to run

TrueDFX · Retired Dev Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 1348

tnt · Veteran Joined: 27 Feb 2004 Posts: 1222

Well, I doubt that...
Let's see: package-X depends on package-Y and will compile against it.
With command "emerge -e world" all packages in the system would be compiled in order that satisfies all dependencies.
So, package-Y would compile BEFORE package-X and package-X would be compiled against clean, new package-Y.
Same situation with "emerge -e system". There would be no packages wich compiles against some other package that is not already clean (recompiled with new flags).
All about dependencies and order of compilation...

racoontje · Veteran Joined: 19 Jul 2004 Posts: 1290

Dude.

O. T. T.

Don't give the "Gentoo is Rice" people a reason

irf2003 · Veteran Joined: 10 Sep 2003 Posts: 1078

what robmoss recommended is extreme, this dev plays with fire, so he has to be cautious.
in most cases:

TrueDFX · Retired Dev Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 1348

Lokheed · Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:23 pm Post subject: