Subject: Re: -ffast-math and packages
To: David Brownlee <>
From: Lubomir Sedlacik <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 05/23/2003 15:00:06
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 01:40:37PM +0100, David Brownlee wrote:
> It seems to make more sense for the Makefile for a package to know
> about this - such as havin
>     CFLAGS:=3D${CFLAGS:S/-ffast-math//}
> in the relevant package makefiles. It allows people to add -ffast-math
> and the few packages with issues to automatically exclude the flags,
> without having everyone who wants to set -ffast-math have to work out
> which packages to exclude.

while i tend to agree i am not sure this is the way pkgsrc should go.
this time it's -ffast-math, next time it will be -finline-functions or
something else.  i understand that fixing optimisation bugs so common
in gcc for less mainstream architectures (alpha, arm, ...) which are
already present in various packages are necessary simply to be able to
compile the software at all, but i think that fixing the packages for
any additional compiler optimisations is adding unnecessary complexity
(think of native/alternative compilers for other platforms supported by

that said, if you use any additional optimisations, you are on your own.
there are mechanisms how to do it outside of pkgsrc, as we've seen
already.  there are simply not enough resources to cover all possible
combinations of compilers and their optimisation flags.

i also understand that it's your initiative and you volunteered to make
the changes, i definitely won't insist on backing them out :), so if you
think it's worth it, just do it.  i'd like to hear others' opinions too,


-- Lubomir Sedlacik <>                   --
--                  <>                   --

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (NetBSD)