Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 31340 - Dangerous C-flag for python
Summary: Dangerous C-flag for python
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: [OLD] Development (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Python Gentoo Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-10-17 03:26 UTC by Ervin Németh
Modified: 2003-10-18 05:40 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
Patch for dev-lang/python-2.2.3-r3 (python-ebuild.patch,318 bytes, patch)
2003-10-17 03:28 UTC, Ervin Németh
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ervin Németh 2003-10-17 03:26:13 UTC
With sys-devel/gcc-3.3.1-r5 building python does a segfault.

CFLAGS="-march=athlon-xp -mmmx -msse -m3dnow -mfpmath=sse,387 -O3
-maccumulate-outgoing-args -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops
-fmove-all-movables -freduce-all-givs -fprefetch-loop-arrays -ffunction-sections
-fforce-addr -pipe"

Removing "-fforce-addr" solves the problem.


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
Comment 1 Ervin Németh 2003-10-17 03:28:38 UTC
Created attachment 19350 [details, diff]
Patch for dev-lang/python-2.2.3-r3

Here is my proposed patch to solve the problem.  I really don't know if the
bug
is CPU and/or gcc-verion dependent...
Comment 2 Alastair Tse (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-10-17 07:21:20 UTC
we can't possibly cater for all insane optimisations. it is a responsibility
of the user to not go crazy with CFLAGS.
Comment 3 Ervin Németh 2003-10-18 02:20:59 UTC
I don't see *your* problem here. I've found a conflict and supplied a patch.

Anyway is there a sharp and clean border between user and developer in Open
Source?

And please, don't insult your users, it's not nice.
Comment 4 Alastair Tse (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-10-18 05:40:28 UTC
i'm not delibrately insulting you. i'm just saying that i don't feel obliged
to filter out gcc optimisations that are just not standard. Gentoo allows
people to set their own CFLAGS to give them power to tweak, but when you
set them at unreasonably dangerous levels, it is up to the user (here, and
in my previous comment, user means "Gentoo User", not the user/dev thing,
because i'm a "Gentoo User" too) to be responible and know the consequences
of those CFLAGS.

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/faq.xml has something about over-optimizations.
although i don't even agree with the -frerun-*, but i'm very conservative
about that.

you can also think of it the other way, giving users more power to tweak,
we can't always stop them shooting themselves in the foot. and when we restrict
the cflags too much, people will start submitting bugs about how restrictive
we are and how gentoo is about choice. we have to walk a fine line between
giving users choice and restricting the choice. all in all, it is also possible
that the -fforce-addr flag you talk about is dependent on gcc version and
-march=, so without more datapoints, it is an isolated occurance.

even though i'm not going to accept this patch, i thank you for submitting
this bug and investigating which of those flags you have that breaks for
you. it maybe useful in the future when someone else tries those CFLAGS.