subject:"\[gentoo\-dev\] RFC\: \-\-as\-needed to default LDFLAGS \(Was\: RFC\: Should preserve\-libs be enabled by default\?\)"

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:07:43 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 22:53 Fri 30 May , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
  On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300
  Mart Raudsepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   The story that matters here is, that a C++ corner case that does
   not work on 0.01% of packages with --as-needed and breaks on
   non-ELF platforms, should not cause good things for our users to
   be shot down.
  
  You could say the same thing for -ffast-math...
 
 When there's a feature that only breaks one package that we know of, 
 wouldn't it make more sense to enable it globally and add an
 exception than to do it the other way around?

Both -ffast-math and --as-needed make the compiler / linker violate
various standards in ways that can't be used safely unless a package
has been explicitly designed to work with it. For packages that have
been explicitly designed to work with either, upstream can add the
options to the build system themselves. For packages that haven't, it's
not Gentoo's place to try to guess whether upstream has designed their
software with ricer flags in mind, and whether if it works by fluke
now it'll still work in the next version.

 I see that a number of packages in the tree explicitly filter 
 -ffast-math.

That's mostly from the bad old days when users were encouraged to use
silly CFLAGS...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300
Mart Raudsepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Paludis is fine with as-needed. But hey, don't let reality get in
the way of your pathetic attempts at turning everything into Paludis
bashing.

It happens to be the only package that I know of that couldn't be
fixed to work with --as-needed (fix for others being to actually
state linking with a library whose symbols are directly used). I have
not heard of anything else.


Except that Paludis is fine with --as-needed.



Ok, then everything in the tree is covered and we can move to having 
--as-needed as default.


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:08:21 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Except that Paludis is fine with --as-needed.
 
 Ok, then everything in the tree is covered and we can move to having 
 --as-needed as default.

Is the next version of everything in the tree covered? Have you made
sure that software isn't merely working by fluke? Is Gentoo really that
desperate to turn everyone into a ricer?

I'd bet you could get a pretty long way by shoving -ffast-math into
CFLAGS by default before anyone would notice...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:07:43 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 22:53 Fri 30 May , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300
Mart Raudsepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The story that matters here is, that a C++ corner case that does
not work on 0.01% of packages with --as-needed and breaks on
non-ELF platforms, should not cause good things for our users to
be shot down.

You could say the same thing for -ffast-math...
When there's a feature that only breaks one package that we know of, 
wouldn't it make more sense to enable it globally and add an

exception than to do it the other way around?


Both -ffast-math and --as-needed make the compiler / linker violate
various standards in ways that can't be used safely unless a package
has been explicitly designed to work with it.


I know exactly which standard -ffast-math violates (IEEE/ISO floating 
point spec) and how (the man page is quite complete about this), 
--as-needed doesn't have any warning about this, there isn't any 
standard that it violates since it's the default behavior at least for 2 
platform (one from those who wrote most of the ELF spec...).

Point the spec, and the paragraph violated.

lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

I'd bet you could get a pretty long way by shoving -ffast-math into
CFLAGS by default before anyone would notice...



Non sequitur. We are talking about --as-needed, not -ffast-math.

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:13:58 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I know exactly which standard -ffast-math violates (IEEE/ISO floating 
 point spec) and how (the man page is quite complete about this), 
 --as-needed doesn't have any warning about this, there isn't any 
 standard that it violates since it's the default behavior at least
 for 2 platform (one from those who wrote most of the ELF spec...).
 Point the spec, and the paragraph violated.

ISO/IEC 14882:1998 section 3.7.1 paragraph 2.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:26:44AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:13:58 +0200
 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I know exactly which standard -ffast-math violates (IEEE/ISO floating 
  point spec) and how (the man page is quite complete about this), 
  --as-needed doesn't have any warning about this, there isn't any 
  standard that it violates since it's the default behavior at least
  for 2 platform (one from those who wrote most of the ELF spec...).
  Point the spec, and the paragraph violated.
 
 ISO/IEC 14882:1998 section 3.7.1 paragraph 2.

Might want to confirm it's in 14882:2003, since the '98 was withdrawn...
~harring


pgpR1x14Lvqq4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Fri, 30 May 2008 16:43:38 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  ISO/IEC 14882:1998 section 3.7.1 paragraph 2.
 
 Might want to confirm it's in 14882:2003, since the '98 was
 withdrawn... ~harring

It's in all the way up to the current 0x draft. It even has the same
section and paragraph number.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:13:58 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know exactly which standard -ffast-math violates (IEEE/ISO floating 
point spec) and how (the man page is quite complete about this), 
--as-needed doesn't have any warning about this, there isn't any 
standard that it violates since it's the default behavior at least

for 2 platform (one from those who wrote most of the ELF spec...).
Point the spec, and the paragraph violated.


ISO/IEC 14882:1998 section 3.7.1 paragraph 2.



If an object of static storage duration has initialization or a 
destructor with side effects, it shall not be eliminated even if

it appears to be unused, except that a class object or its copy
may be eliminated as specified in 12.8.

Unchanged in the 2003 revision.

Is that related to linking? I don't think so. Still, PE and ELF are 
older than the first C++ spec so, IFF your reading of this chapter is 
correct, C++ is broken by design.


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:54:45 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  ISO/IEC 14882:1998 section 3.7.1 paragraph 2.
 
 If an object of static storage duration has initialization or a 
 destructor with side effects, it shall not be eliminated even if
 it appears to be unused, except that a class object or its copy
 may be eliminated as specified in 12.8.
 
 Unchanged in the 2003 revision.
 
 Is that related to linking? I don't think so.

Linking with as-needed is the stage in which the elimination occurs,
and as-needed is the cause of the elimination. So yes, it is related.

 Still, PE and ELF are older than the first C++ spec so, IFF your
 reading of this chapter is correct, C++ is broken by design.

Not at all. Read The Design and Evolution of C++, and you shall see
that requiring changes to the linker where necessary for sensible
behaviour was considered acceptable, and with good reason.
-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, 31 May 2008 02:17:15 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
  Linking with as-needed is the stage in which the elimination occurs,
  and as-needed is the cause of the elimination. So yes, it is
  related.
 
 The linker just does bookkeeping, if there aren't symbols used, the 
 library won't be in the list.

Which is where the design flaw is -- as-needed incorrectly assumes that
the only type of dependency between shared objects is a name
dependency. This isn't true with C++ static initialisers.

  Still, PE and ELF are older than the first C++ spec so, IFF your
  reading of this chapter is correct, C++ is broken by design.
  
  Not at all. Read The Design and Evolution of C++, and you shall
  see that requiring changes to the linker where necessary for
  sensible behaviour was considered acceptable, and with good reason.
 
 As in we have a square wheels, let's make routes for them...

More like getting the linker right is important enough to us that
we'll pester people to make their wheels at least octagonal rather than
the current square. Unfortunately, as-needed is moving back to square.

 Anyway is the book a standard? Is it available as pdf so you can
 point me the exact paragraph?

The book is an explanation of why the standard is the way it is. You
can find it at your local library.

Whilst we're on the subject... You'll note that as-needed overrides
explicit instructions from the programmer. When you say link A to B,
you aren't say link A to B unless you feel like not doing the link.
Unfortunately, the ricers shoving as-needed upon everyone aren't smart
enough to fix libtool, which is the real problem here, so they go for
the thing they think they understand instead, without thinking the
implications through -- as-needed, like fast-math, is for programs
explicitly designed for it, not for universal use.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

2008-05-30 Thread Marius Mauch

On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:47:44 +0300
Mart Raudsepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Portage developers - is there anything we should do to get --as-needed
 to make.conf.example and other places, beyond fixing the known bugs on
 the appropriate bug tracker?

make.conf.example is no big deal, that's just documentation, though
personally I'd prefer to remove the toolchain (CHOST, *FLAGS) stuff from
there so we don't have to maintain all the arch-specific diffs.

If you want to really enable it by default you'll have to persuade the
profile maintainers to add it into the appropriate make.defaults.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

Which is where the design flaw is -- as-needed incorrectly assumes that
the only type of dependency between shared objects is a name
dependency. This isn't true with C++ static initialisers.


I don't see why should be different than abusing .init in any other 
language that let you do (ok, C, C++, asm mostly).



Unfortunately, the ricers shoving as-needed upon everyone aren't smart


Asking people to not do stuff that is unportable (Solaris and PE based 
systems) seems sensible and not ricing.



enough to fix libtool, which is the real problem here, so they go for
the thing they think they understand instead, without thinking the
implications through -- as-needed, like fast-math, is for programs
explicitly designed for it, not for universal use.


Differently -ffast-math is setting up a slightly different behavior than 
the usual standard, --as-needed enforce what is the default standard in 
determined architectures, thus the exception and the universality are 
quite reverted.


We already started to think how to fix libtool, or at least make it less 
annoying, removing .la files when they are not necessary.


Similarly we started proposing upstream to use pkg-config if they aren't 
already.


lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, 31 May 2008 03:03:42 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Which is where the design flaw is -- as-needed incorrectly assumes
that the only type of dependency between shared objects is a name
dependency. This isn't true with C++ static initialisers.

I don't see why should be different than abusing .init in any other
language that let you do (ok, C, C++, asm mostly).

In C++ it's not abuse. It's using the language as specified and
designed.

Unfortunately, the ricers shoving as-needed upon everyone aren't
smart

Asking people to not do stuff that is unportable (Solaris and PE
based systems) seems sensible and not ricing.

Not where unportable means doesn't work on systems that fail to
correctly implement widely used international standards it doesn't.

You might as well say you shouldn't use lchown() because BSD 2 doesn't
support it.

enough to fix libtool, which is the real problem here, so they go
for the thing they think they understand instead, without thinking
the implications through -- as-needed, like fast-math, is for
programs explicitly designed for it, not for universal use.

Differently -ffast-math is setting up a slightly different behavior
than the usual standard, --as-needed enforce what is the default
standard in determined architectures, thus the exception and the
universality are quite reverted.

Both are standard-violating options that are useful for applications
designed to work with them explicitly.

We already started to think how to fix libtool, or at least make it
less annoying, removing .la files when they are not necessary.

Again, that's silly ricing. Saving a few kBytes is irrelevant. Instead,
you should be focusing your efforts upon something that will really
make a difference, like getting something based upon this into upstream:

http://patches.ubuntu.com/by-release/extracted/debian/libt/libtool/1.9+20051221-1/link_all_deplibs.dpatch

--
Ciaran McCreesh

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

2008-05-30 Thread Josh Saddler


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:07:43 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that a number of packages in the tree explicitly filter 
-ffast-math.


That's mostly from the bad old days when users were encouraged to use
silly CFLAGS...


1. _When_ was this?
2. _Who_ was encouraging this?

. . . because it sure as hell hasn't ever been in the official 
documentation.


Last year I wrote the optimization guide[1] in part to stem the flood of 
bad advice on the unofficial gentoo-wiki, and by uninformed users on the 
forums.


There hasn't been any official documentation telling users to do foolish 
things with their CFLAGS or LDFLAGS.


[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-optimization.xml



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

While we can continually loop around w/ the --as-needed is evil since 
c++ does this one odd thing occasionally argument, why not hear from 
the folks using it, specifically finding out what breaks in their 
usage?

Ciaran: yes, just because the tree works now w/ --as-needed doesn't 
mean that future pkg versions will work.  Dumb argument however 
(has shades of 'the sky is falling') since *every* new version is 
untested and has the potential to break against our accepted build 
environments (or to break pre-existing pkgs).  That's a known issue, 
and dealt with (30 days stablization among other things).

So... folks have pointed out a benefit to using --as-needed.  The 
benefit itself doesn't seem particularly in dispute, analyze the 
fallout from it- if the best that is offered is the spec says 
otherwise, screw the spec frankly- a .01% breakage w/ 99.99% pkgs 
getting a positive gain is a strong argument for doing exemptions 
where needed.

Basically, pull out the stats of the breakage.  There is *always* risk 
in changes (new gcc, new bash breaking paludis/portage, etc), someone 
kindly come back w/ stats backing their specific viewpoint.

Arguing over the spec at this point isn't going anywhere, so just 
drop it.

~harring


pgpxIxoDRqEjB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:43:56 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So... folks have pointed out a benefit to using --as-needed.

But they haven't. They've pointed out a flaw in libtool that is sort of
worked around sometimes at the expense of breaking things by using
as-needed. The correct solution is to fix libtool, but that's evidently
beyond the abilities of people who're only interested in increasing
their epenis size by throwing more silly options in config files.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 02:50:20AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:43:56 -0700
 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  So... folks have pointed out a benefit to using --as-needed.
 
 But they haven't. They've pointed out a flaw in libtool that is sort of
 worked around sometimes at the expense of breaking things by using
 as-needed.

 The correct solution is to fix libtool., but that's evidently
 beyond the abilities of people who're only interested in increasing
 their epenis size by throwing more silly options in config files.

Then go do it.  You don't like the solution folks favor because you 
view another as more correct and proper, either put up, or shut up.  

Meanwhile, obviously w/ the exemption of you and your epenis 
insults, most other folk don't seem to mind this approach as at least 
an interim solution- so again I ask, where are the stats stating the 
sky shall fall?

~harring


pgpp8XFN6IweK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:43:56 -0700
 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So... folks have pointed out a benefit to using --as-needed.

 But they haven't. They've pointed out a flaw in libtool that is sort of
 worked around sometimes at the expense of breaking things by using
 as-needed. The correct solution is to fix libtool, but that's evidently
 beyond the abilities of people who're only interested in increasing
 their epenis size by throwing more silly options in config files.

This is incredible. I have never seen a more logic-lacking and
flamebait reply to a post full of reason and logic.

1) You say the benefits haven't been pointed out, while several posts
have already done so. You seem to be the only one pretending to be
unaware of them.
2) The expense of breaking things is completely unqualified in your
post. Here's some context: expense is minimal since the problem is
easily fixable, and breaking things is the list of bugs on the
tracker bug -- 19 with most of them already having patches that just
need to be committed
3) You say fixing libtool is the correct solution but you don't say
why or explain how. You don't give any information at all, and due to
the non-existant evidence, I am going to take the statement with a
fist of salt.
4) epenis size? Really.

You grabbed one line in his entire post and used it to divert the
conversation's direction from constructive to time-wasting-argument.

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with what Brian has said. There are
advantages (they've have already been stated earlier), and they far
outweigh the disadvantages (breakages are easily fixable afaict).


~Nirbheek Chauhan who awaits the reply by ciaranm quoting one sentence
from his post and flaming/trolling him
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:01:24 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The correct solution is to fix libtool., but that's evidently
  beyond the abilities of people who're only interested in increasing
  their epenis size by throwing more silly options in config files.
 
 Then go do it.  You don't like the solution folks favor because you 
 view another as more correct and proper, either put up, or shut
 up.  

Ah, brilliant. The old yes, we know we're wrong but we're going to do
it anyway so there! approach. Nice design principle, that...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:38:12 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 1) You say the benefits haven't been pointed out, while several posts
 have already done so. You seem to be the only one pretending to be
 unaware of them.

No no no. The benefits described would be obtained by fixing libtool.
What you get from as-needed is a half-arsed sometimes-working subset of
those benefits. as-needed is not the fix for the libtool problems.

 2) The expense of breaking things is completely unqualified in your
 post. Here's some context: expense is minimal since the problem is
 easily fixable, and breaking things is the list of bugs on the
 tracker bug -- 19 with most of them already having patches that just
 need to be committed

And all of which are utterly pointless.

 3) You say fixing libtool is the correct solution but you don't say
 why or explain how. You don't give any information at all, and due to
 the non-existant evidence, I am going to take the statement with a
 fist of salt.

I'm assuming everyone contributing to this thread knows exactly what the
libtool problems are... But from the looks of things, plenty of people
are quite happy to jump in and yell when they don't have the slightest
clue what the root problem is, what as-needed changes, what as-needed
breaks or how as-needed is unrelated to the problem. And unfortunately,
it looks like those people are the ones that're going to be making the
decisions.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:38:12 +0530
 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 1) You say the benefits haven't been pointed out, while several posts
 have already done so. You seem to be the only one pretending to be
 unaware of them.

 No no no. The benefits described would be obtained by fixing libtool.
 What you get from as-needed is a half-arsed sometimes-working subset of
 those benefits. as-needed is not the fix for the libtool problems.

Once again, you do not support your argument with anything but your
own word. Don't make me choke on the salt please :)


 2) The expense of breaking things is completely unqualified in your
 post. Here's some context: expense is minimal since the problem is
 easily fixable, and breaking things is the list of bugs on the
 tracker bug -- 19 with most of them already having patches that just
 need to be committed

 And all of which are utterly pointless.

Ah, that's assuming your arguments are right, and your arguments
aren't supported, so I'll take some more salt with this one.


 3) You say fixing libtool is the correct solution but you don't say
 why or explain how. You don't give any information at all, and due to
 the non-existant evidence, I am going to take the statement with a
 fist of salt.

 I'm assuming everyone contributing to this thread knows exactly what the
 libtool problems are... But from the looks of things, plenty of people
 are quite happy to jump in and yell when they don't have the slightest
 clue what the root problem is, what as-needed changes, what as-needed
 breaks or how as-needed is unrelated to the problem.

Once again, rhetoric and insults without logic or reason. We all know
you know that you need facts to convince people, but you're not
providing any facts. One can only conclude that your purpose is not to
convince. I honestly am baffled what purpose you have in mind.

 And unfortunately,
 it looks like those people are the ones that're going to be making the
 decisions.

Excellent, then you are free to point and laugh when we trip and fall.
In the meantime, if you truly think everyone is making the wrong
decision, talk with some facts and/or statistics.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:53:05 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  No no no. The benefits described would be obtained by fixing
  libtool. What you get from as-needed is a half-arsed
  sometimes-working subset of those benefits. as-needed is not the
  fix for the libtool problems.
 
 Once again, you do not support your argument with anything but your
 own word. Don't make me choke on the salt please :)

Uhm. You're suggesting that the underlying issue is not a libtool
problem? Or you're suggesting that as-needed fixes the libtool bug?
Which basic fact that everyone discussing this should already know are
you disputing?

 Once again, rhetoric and insults without logic or reason. We all know
 you know that you need facts to convince people, but you're not
 providing any facts. One can only conclude that your purpose is not to
 convince. I honestly am baffled what purpose you have in mind.

I expect people to do their homework and understand what we're
discussing. Do you expect me to start every post by explain what a
linker is?

  And unfortunately, it looks like those people are the ones that're
  going to be making the decisions.
 
 Excellent, then you are free to point and laugh when we trip and fall.
 In the meantime, if you truly think everyone is making the wrong
 decision, talk with some facts and/or statistics.

Fact: the underlying issue is a libtool bug.

Fact: as-needed does not fix this bug. It attempts to work around it.

Fact: as-needed breaks standard-compliant code.

Fact: fixing the libtool bug would give all the benefits purportedly
given by using as-needed, without the drawbacks.

It's quite simple, and if there're any of the above that you didn't
already know then why are you wasting everyone else's time discussing
things in this thread without doing some basic research first?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

2008-05-30 Thread Ravi Pinjala


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 07:38:12 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

1) You say the benefits haven't been pointed out, while several posts
have already done so. You seem to be the only one pretending to be
unaware of them.


No no no. The benefits described would be obtained by fixing libtool.
What you get from as-needed is a half-arsed sometimes-working subset of
those benefits. as-needed is not the fix for the libtool problems.


2) The expense of breaking things is completely unqualified in your
post. Here's some context: expense is minimal since the problem is
easily fixable, and breaking things is the list of bugs on the
tracker bug -- 19 with most of them already having patches that just
need to be committed


And all of which are utterly pointless.


3) You say fixing libtool is the correct solution but you don't say
why or explain how. You don't give any information at all, and due to
the non-existant evidence, I am going to take the statement with a
fist of salt.


I'm assuming everyone contributing to this thread knows exactly what the
libtool problems are... But from the looks of things, plenty of people
are quite happy to jump in and yell when they don't have the slightest
clue what the root problem is, what as-needed changes, what as-needed
breaks or how as-needed is unrelated to the problem. And unfortunately,
it looks like those people are the ones that're going to be making the
decisions.



Could you explain, for the benefit of us spectators, what these libtool 
problems are, and what cleaner solution you have in mind? It'd make this 
whole discussion a lot more comprehensible.


--Ravi
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Once again, you do not support your argument with anything but your
 own word. Don't make me choke on the salt please :)

 Uhm. You're suggesting that the underlying issue is not a libtool
 problem? Or you're suggesting that as-needed fixes the libtool bug?
 Which basic fact that everyone discussing this should already know are
 you disputing?

I'm disputing your claim that fixing libtool is the correct solution
*right now*, and that it's sanely doable in a reasonable time-frame.
The former has been questioned by pretty much everyone else in the
thread, and the latter is probably false since you don't just do it
yourself.


 Once again, rhetoric and insults without logic or reason. We all know
 you know that you need facts to convince people, but you're not
 providing any facts. One can only conclude that your purpose is not to
 convince. I honestly am baffled what purpose you have in mind.

 I expect people to do their homework and understand what we're
 discussing. Do you expect me to start every post by explain what a
 linker is?

EDOESNOTMAKESENSE
You said

[...]plenty of people are quite happy to jump in and yell when they
don't have the slightest clue what the root problem is[...]

I replied saying that the paragraph was full of rhetoric and insults
without logic or reason. The latter part of the post is purely about
how you're doing the same even where you should be talking with facts.

Your reply seriously does not make sense to me.


  And unfortunately, it looks like those people are the ones that're
  going to be making the decisions.

 Excellent, then you are free to point and laugh when we trip and fall.
 In the meantime, if you truly think everyone is making the wrong
 decision, talk with some facts and/or statistics.

 Fact: the underlying issue is a libtool bug.

Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else
someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it.


 Fact: as-needed does not fix this bug. It attempts to work around it.

Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to fix libtool.


 Fact: as-needed breaks standard-compliant code.

Fact: Breakages are rare, code which causes it is discouraged anyway,
and is fixable in any case. We're not a standards organisation.


 Fact: fixing the libtool bug would give all the benefits purportedly
 given by using as-needed, without the drawbacks.

Fact: It hasn't been done forever, and won't be done anytime soon.


 It's quite simple, and if there're any of the above that you didn't
 already know then why are you wasting everyone else's time discussing
 things in this thread without doing some basic research first?

It's quite simple, and you already knew all of the above, so why are
you wasting everyone's time and energy discussing these things in this
thread?

Quite refreshing, seeing you type out your points in a clear manner
for clearer rebuttal. I am going to assume that the matter is settled
now.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Fact: the underlying issue is a libtool bug.
 
 Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else
 someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it.

Untrue. The amount of effort that's been wasted messing around with
as-needed could easily have been directed to fixing the root cause
instead. Debian have already done most of the work.

  Fact: as-needed does not fix this bug. It attempts to work around
  it.
 
 Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to fix libtool.

But it doesn't work. And fixing libtool isn't vapour. Read the Debian
patch.

  Fact: as-needed breaks standard-compliant code.
 
 Fact: Breakages are rare, code which causes it is discouraged anyway,
 and is fixable in any case. We're not a standards organisation.

You seriously think Gentoo has the manpower to go around making
unnecessary changes to upstream code? And there's nothing in the C++
standard discouraging static initialisation.

  Fact: fixing the libtool bug would give all the benefits purportedly
  given by using as-needed, without the drawbacks.
 
 Fact: It hasn't been done forever, and won't be done anytime soon.

And the Debian patch is...?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:50:49 -0500
Ravi Pinjala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Could you explain, for the benefit of us spectators, what these
 libtool problems are, and what cleaner solution you have in mind?
 It'd make this whole discussion a lot more comprehensible.

libtool links against dependencies-of-dependencies, rather than just
direct dependencies. This is correct behaviour on some platforms under
some situations (one example is static linking). But when linking
shared objects on modern Unixy platforms it's a pain in the ass since
you end up with a load of bogus shared object dependencies that break
things unnecessarily upon upgrades.

as-needed works around this by making the linker only link things from
the command line that resolve a name dependency (but name dependencies
aren't the only dependency type). This means that most of the extras
libtool adds in end up getting ignored, but it also means that things
the programmer has explicitly said to link in get ignored too.

The correct fix is to make libtool only link to dependencies of
dependencies when doing, for example, static linking. Debian has a
half-working patch for this that I posted earlier in the thread.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530
 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else
 someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it.

 Untrue. The amount of effort that's been wasted messing around with
 as-needed could easily have been directed to fixing the root cause
 instead. Debian have already done most of the work.

And the time you just wasted spewing rhetoric on this thread? Since
you have such a deep understanding of everything, couldn't you have
done the rest of the work, posted it here and instantly convinced
everyone?

 Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to fix libtool.

 But it doesn't work. And fixing libtool isn't vapour. Read the Debian
 patch.

Fixing libtool isn't vapour, neither is the debian patch, but your
plan/proposal to do is non-existant. You're just saying Do this
because I say you should, I don't know how, but you should. Oh, and if
you don't you're all idiots.

 Fact: Breakages are rare, code which causes it is discouraged anyway,
 and is fixable in any case. We're not a standards organisation.

 You seriously think Gentoo has the manpower to go around making
 unnecessary changes to upstream code? And there's nothing in the C++
 standard discouraging static initialisation.

The tracker bug (bug 129413) seems to say otherwise.

 Fact: It hasn't been done forever, and won't be done anytime soon.

 And the Debian patch is...?

Useless unless it's complete. As I said above, fix it and convince us.
Show us how wrong we are. We'll be glad and grateful. Don't whine
about it and waste everyone's time and energy.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: --as-needed to default LDFLAGS (Was: RFC: Should preserve-libs be enabled by default?)