> >
> > are you sure??
> >
> > taken from info gcc:
>
> [...]
>
> > i'm not saying that you shold not use -ffast-math , but only
> use it if there
> > is some significant optimization ...(mabye mesa, gimp ...)
> >
> > i like Giuseppe's idea where you have CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS
> -ffast-math" or
> > CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -ffast-math".
> >
> > seems fair?
>
> the problem is that, since bero, we use it...
> anyway, if an application call sqrt without checking or make sure
> its argument won't
> be positive is just bogus.
>
does it matter ? it is not smart to use it ...
better fix it late than never, righT?
it is unwise to violate some ANSI specs to get that little bit of
optimizations that probably won't show up on non-maths intensive
applications.
if you _really_ awnt optimizations, turn on -O3,
and -fexpensive-optimizations (-O3 turns on inline functions)
so you should get some performance gain there.
> > one last thing: doesn't rpm now require bzip >= 1.0 to build,
> or am i wrong
> > about that ?
> >
> >
> > i once tried compiling 3.0.4 with bzip2 1pre, and it barfed...
>
> i've patched bzip2 and chmou patched rpm ....
>
well ok :)
