Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-29 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:30:24 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:05:19 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: You appear to be assuming that those pushing the --as-needed solution have it finished. This is far from the case. There's still

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-29 Thread Alex Alexander
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:23:40AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:30:24 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:05:19 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: You appear to be assuming that those pushing the --as-needed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-29 Thread David Leverton
On Monday 28 June 2010 02:09:44 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Hello everyone, I'm sure at least half of you are thinking Oh no, not this again..., and I agree. However, I'm /also/ thinking Why the heck haven't we done this yet? [...] /If/ you're¹ going to insist on doing this, could you please

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-29 Thread David Leverton
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 09:46:52 Alex Alexander wrote: If the community feels their choice, albeit not perfect, will help the project, you have to respect that. That is, if you want to be part of the community :) I see your point to some extent, but the concern is that such decisions might

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-29 Thread Alex Alexander
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:25:50PM +0100, David Leverton wrote: On Tuesday 29 June 2010 09:46:52 Alex Alexander wrote: If the community feels their choice, albeit not perfect, will help the project, you have to respect that. That is, if you want to be part of the community :) I see your

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:39:44 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: There's a tracker bug for this, and the problems still remaining are: http://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=129413hide_resolved=1 You've forgotten make --as-needed not break correct code by making the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 06/28/2010 10:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:39:44 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: There's a tracker bug for this, and the problems still remaining are: http://bugs.gentoo.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=129413hide_resolved=1 You've forgotten make

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:44:54 +0300 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: You've forgotten make --as-needed not break correct code by making the linker ignore explicit instructions from a program author to link two things together. Until you do that, --as-needed is in the same

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 06/28/2010 10:51 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:44:54 +0300 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: You've forgotten make --as-needed not break correct code by making the linker ignore explicit instructions from a program author to link two things together. Until you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/28/2010 10:51 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Will Gentoo be doing the same for -Ofast and its flags then? After all, most packages work with them, and you can't let the few packages that require standard-compliant

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:08:22 +0300 Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: This is not about optimizing but preventing clear breakage, the benefits of asneeded are not under debate here (like already stated in the original message this thread started from) --as-needed does not prevent

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 06:39:44AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: What needs to be done now is for someone with lots of CPU power to grab the list of packages[1], and build them one-by-one (all versions), adding to a new list all the ebuilds that fail. How to test: LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Pacho Ramos
El lun, 28-06-2010 a las 06:39 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan escribió: Hello everyone, I'm sure at least half of you are thinking Oh no, not this again..., and I agree. However, I'm /also/ thinking Why the heck haven't we done this yet? We've been discussing this since 2008, and probably waaay

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 06:39:44AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: What needs to be done now is for someone with lots of CPU power to grab the list of packages[1], and build them one-by-one (all versions), adding to a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Alex Alexander
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 06:39:44AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Hello everyone, ... What needs to be done now is for someone with lots of CPU power to grab the list of packages[1], and build them one-by-one (all versions), adding to a new list all the ebuilds that fail. How to test:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Thomas Anderson
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 01:40:46PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/28/2010 10:51 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Will Gentoo be doing the same for -Ofast and its flags then? After all, most packages work with them,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2010.06.28 14:43, Thomas Anderson wrote: [snip] Not taking technical sides in this thread simply because I have no time to argue it at length, BUT: Simply because a topic has been discussed to *death* does not mean the correct answer was obtained, only that a majority agree

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:59:21 +0100 Roy Bamford neddyseag...@gentoo.org wrote: All of engineering involves compromise. It's not a question of compromise. It's a question of being right vs being wrong. If one person says that 2 + 2 = 4 and a loud mob screams that their prophet revealed to them in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-28 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:05:19 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: You appear to be assuming that those pushing the --as-needed solution have it finished. This is far from the case. There's still a lot of work that would need to be done, and that work will have to be

[gentoo-dev] Adding --as-needed to LDFLAGS in profiles/default/linux/make.defaults

2010-06-27 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
Hello everyone, I'm sure at least half of you are thinking Oh no, not this again..., and I agree. However, I'm /also/ thinking Why the heck haven't we done this yet? We've been discussing this since 2008, and probably waaay before that too. The entire discussion about whether we should do this