While building chromium i noticed that it is passing both the cflags and cxxflags while compiling. My flags are both the same so you can see the duplication of "-O2 -march=pentium-m -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer". I did test this with different cxxflags and it does indeed pass in both sets. i686-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -O2 -march=pentium-m -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -O2 -march=pentium-m -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -pthread -fno-exceptions -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-missing-field-initializers -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -fvisibility=hidden -fno-strict-aliasing -pthread -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/pixman-1 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/libpng12 -O2 -fno-ident -fdata-sections -ffunction-sections -fno-rtti -fno-threadsafe-statics -fvisibility-inlines-hidden '-DNO_TCMALLOC' '-DNO_HEAPCHECKER' '-DCHROMIUM_BUILD' '-DENABLE_GPU=1' '-DNDEBUG' '-DNVALGRIND' -I. -MMD -MF out/Release/.deps/out/Release/obj.target/appcache/webkit/appcache/appcache_response.o.d.raw -c -o out/Release/obj.target/appcache/webkit/appcache/appcache_response.o webkit/appcache/appcache_response.cc Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. emerge -v chromium
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 319783 ***
This is not necessarily a duplicate, because when I filed a bug concerning this a month ago, I was using the current dev channel release. The only other version currently in the portage tree is 5.0.375.70, which is the current beta channel release. My understanding of things from observations of the Google Chrome Release blog is that the two channels are developed concurrently, with with improvements from the development version going into the beta version as they are considered safe. Then if no issues are found, the beta channel versions are put into the stable channel. I assume that the reporter here is using 5.0.375.70 and if he is not, then he should upgrade, because using an old version would expose him to an older version of the ebuild that suffers from this issue. If he is not using an older version, then this bug might deserve its own report, since this is a beta channel version of chromium, which the Chromium maintainer, Paweł Hajdan jr, might handle separately from dev channel versions of Chromium, despite the two channels using the same package name in portage.
That snip it was during the upgrade to 5.0.375.70 so yes the bug still does exist. I am not sure if http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=319783#c4 "Fixed in dev channel version bump." applies to 5.0.375.70. If it was intended to then the bug should remain open. If that was applied farther up somewhere and has yet to be released then please close as duplicate. Thanks
(In reply to comment #2) This is not fully correct. The stable channel sooner or later gets the changes from the dev channel, similarly for the ebuilds. However, I was making another change that required a revision bump, so I've also fixed this bug. Thanks for the report.
