Re: Updating the build guide (Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild)

On 12/03/2017 12:30 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Dec 3, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Keith N. McKenna wrote: That begs the Question should we add a section to the overall build guide for CentOS6? If yes I can add the section as a clone of the CentOS5 Guide

Re: Updating the build guide (Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild)

On 12/3/2017 3:30 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Dec 3, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> >> Keith N. McKenna wrote: >>> That begs the Question should we add a section to the overall build >>> guide for CentOS6? If yes I can add the section as a clone of the >>>

Re: Updating the build guide (Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild)

> On Dec 3, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Keith N. McKenna wrote: >> That begs the Question should we add a section to the overall build >> guide for CentOS6? If yes I can add the section as a clone of the >> CentOS5 Guide with all the proper warnings and

Updating the build guide (Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild)

Keith N. McKenna wrote: That begs the Question should we add a section to the overall build guide for CentOS6? If yes I can add the section as a clone of the CentOS5 Guide with all the proper warnings and notes about it needing updating for the CentOS6 specifics. No, this wouldn't be helpful

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

On 12/3/2017 4:14 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> On 30/11/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported build system... I ran into a LOT of issues. >>> Such

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

Jim Jagielski wrote: On Dec 2, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 30/11/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported build system... I ran into a LOT of issues. Such as, for example? for starters: o zip 3.0. o GIO OK, I now

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > On Dec 2, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > > > On 30/11/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported > >> build system... I ran

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

> On Dec 2, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported >> build system... I ran into a LOT of issues. > > Such as, for example? for starters: o zip 3.0. o

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

On 30/11/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported build system... I ran into a LOT of issues. Such as, for example? I think that the guide we have at https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#CentOS_5

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

On 30.11.2017 20:44, Don Lewis wrote: On 30 Nov, Jim Jagielski wrote: I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported build system... I ran into a LOT of issues. So, imo, any fix that is *specific* for CentOS5 should be discounted. I can't even do CentOS5 builds anymore.

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

On 30 Nov, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported > build system... I ran into a LOT of issues. So, imo, any fix that is > *specific* for CentOS5 should be discounted. I can't even do CentOS5 builds anymore. My CentOS5 VM broke and CentOS

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

I would put it a bit more strongly. I think 4.1.x should be strictly reserved for changes that are essential to fix urgent user-visible bugs. On 11/30/2017 5:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported build system... I ran into a LOT of

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

I think for 4.2.x and later, we have deprecated CentOS5 as a supported build system... I ran into a LOT of issues. So, imo, any fix that is *specific* for CentOS5 should be discounted. For 4.1.x, I'd prefer something which is a quick and easy fix, rather than something that touches a lot of build

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

On 30 Nov, Peter kovacs wrote: > The bug mentioned is referring to a gcc bug in 4.2.x. The bugtrackerlink > claims it is fixed in 4.3.x > Do we need to keep these workarounds? > Maybe we can drop this all together. Would raise maintainability in general. > Who uses 4.2.x compilers? RHEL / CentOS

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

The bug mentioned is referring to a gcc bug in 4.2.x. The bugtrackerlink claims it is fixed in 4.3.x Do we need to keep these workarounds? Maybe we can drop this all together. Would raise maintainability in general. Who uses 4.2.x compilers? Am 29. November 2017 19:16:29 MEZ schrieb Don Lewis

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

On 29 Nov, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'm just concerned about the CXXFLAGS interaction > > The proposed patch breaks how I expect many people > are building AOO and it's a regression that, unless > we are super clear about it, would bite a lot of > people. How about this: Index:

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

+1. I have to adjust build flags in order to reduce my log rubbish at least a bit. Am 29. November 2017 14:54:31 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski : >I'm just concerned about the CXXFLAGS interaction > >The proposed patch breaks how I expect many people >are building AOO and it's a

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

On 29 Nov, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'm just concerned about the CXXFLAGS interaction > > The proposed patch breaks how I expect many people > are building AOO and it's a regression that, unless > we are super clear about it, would bite a lot of > people. How many people set CXXFLAGS in the

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

I'm just concerned about the CXXFLAGS interaction The proposed patch breaks how I expect many people are building AOO and it's a regression that, unless we are super clear about it, would bite a lot of people. > On Nov 28, 2017, at 6:13 PM, Don Lewis wrote: > > On 28 Nov,

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

On 28 Nov, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Wouldn't it make sense to do something like LOCAL_CFLAGS which > could then be manipulated?... It depends on what the goal is. What would be nice is if debug flags and optimization flags could be specified from the environment in CFLAGS to override the defaults,

Re: a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

Wouldn't it make sense to do something like LOCAL_CFLAGS which could then be manipulated?... What I might do is commit this and then work on that ;) > On Nov 28, 2017, at 4:42 AM, Don Lewis wrote: > > Here's a gbuild patch vs. trunk r1816518 that makes setting optimization

a more sane way to override optimization flags in gbuild

Here's a gbuild patch vs. trunk r1816518 that makes setting optimization level overrides for specific files a lot easier. I also added a way to safely specify -O1 without breaking debug. It's not perfect because if someone set CXXFLAGS in the environment, it will override the override in the .mk