Simon Stelling posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:51:31 +0100:
> AFAIK the toolchain eclass doesn't strip -Os, it replaces -O? with -O2, which > also enables -fomit-frame-pointer. I hadn't thought about that, but come to think of it, I think you are indeed correct. I'll have to check, and may just be removing it, as my CFLAGS string is certainly long enough without it! <g> > On amd64 frame-pointers aren't needed to do debugging, so it doesn't > have any impact. Ahh... I had wondered about that, and seen hints to that effect, but no direct statement. Good to know! >> There is [a bug filed]. I don't recall if I filed it or if it was >> already there, but both JH and the portage folks know about the issue. >> IIRC, the portage folks decided it was their side that needed changed, >> but that required changes to the distcc package, and I don't know how >> that has gone since I don't use distcc, except that I was slightly >> surprised to see the warning in portage 2.1 still. > > Ah, very good :) I should probably look it up and see what the status is... AFAIK, eselect compiler is mostly working, but it still doesn't handle the conversion from gcc-config correctly on amd64 (and I noticed recently, with the gcc-4.1 snapshots, it doesn't remove the old config when the snapshot is upgraded, but I haven't looked into it). IIRC, tho, JH said he wasn't going to have much time for awhile, due to school I think it was, so that's kinda in suspended animation ATM. >> That's what was nice about configcache, which was supposed to be in the >> next portage, but I haven't seen or heard anything about it for awhile, >> and the next portage, 2.1, is what I'm using. configcache seriously >> shortened that stage of the build, leaving more of it parallelized, >> but... >> > Good news ;) > > ferringb has been asking for testing for quite a while now and recently > he sent a mail to the portage-dev mailing list, basically saying that if > nobody steps up with a good reason, he will include the confcache patch > with the next release. Good news indeed! =8^) Looking forward to it! ... I've been thinking about joining the portage list, and in fact have it subscribed here in PAN (on gmane), but I haven't actually had time to go thru the list history and get in context. Likewise with the docs list, as a number of folks have suggested I'd be good at that, what with my 600 line posts and the like. <g> >> BTW, what is your opinion on -ftracer? Several devs I've noticed use >> it, but the manpage says it's not that useful without active profiling, >> which means compiling, profiling, and recompiling, AFAIK. > > I don't use it, but not for a certain reason, so I really can't comment > on this. Probably my reason -- you just can't see from the manpage what use it would be to you. =8^) I /think/ I noticed Spyderous using it, and anyone that can maintain the complexity that's xorg certainly gets my respect. I've been looking for a good non-disruptive excuse to ask him, but haven't yet found one, unfortunately. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- [email protected] mailing list
