Summary: | [port] lame update (fix CFLAGS) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | Yoshiaki Uchikawa <yoshiaki> | ||||
Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | freebsd-ports (Nobody) <ports> | ||||
Status: | Closed FIXED | ||||||
Severity: | Affects Only Me | ||||||
Priority: | Normal | ||||||
Version: | Latest | ||||||
Hardware: | Any | ||||||
OS: | Any | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Yoshiaki Uchikawa
2002-08-16 15:00:02 UTC
What about making patch optional? I mean, if the user adds WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS, this patch is not applied. Otherwise, it is applied per default. Check audio/liba52/Makefile for an example. > Fix CFLAGS > Christian Weisgerber(naddy@mips.inka.de) sugget me. > > diff -ruN lame.orig/files/patch-configure lame/files/patch-configure > --- lame.orig/files/patch-configure Thu Jan 1 09:00:00 1970 > +++ lame/files/patch-configure Thu Aug 15 23:59:51 2002 > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ > +diff -ruN lame-3.91.orig/configure lame-3.91/configure > +--- configure.orig Wed Dec 26 02:59:42 2001 > ++++ configure Thu Aug 15 23:54:44 2002 > +@@ -5521,12 +5521,6 @@ > + > + > + if test "x$GCC" = "xyes"; then > +- # gcc defaults. OS specific options go in versious sections below > +- # from the gcc man pages: "there is no reason to use -pedantic" > +- CFLAGS="-Wall -pipe ${CFLAGS}" > +- > +- > +- OPTIMIZATION="-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -funroll-loops" > + case "${GCC_version}" in > + 2.96*) > + # for buggy version of gcc shipped with RH7.1, back of on some -- Mario S F Ferreira - DF - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature." Computer Science Undergraduate | FreeBSD Committer | CS Developer flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:57:27 +0900 (JST) Yoshiaki Uchikawa <yoshiaki@kt.rim.or.jp> wrote: > Fix CFLAGS > Christian Weisgerber(naddy@mips.inka.de) sugget me. There's no need to remove "OPTIMIZATION": as long as nobody uses "--enable-expopt={yes,full}" for configure, it doesn't get used. What's wrong with adding "-Wall -pipe" to CFLAGS? There's an outstanding PR (39606) which I want to commit (maintainer timeout), but I hadn't time to do it yet (unfortunately there are some other things with higher priority on my TODO list). It updates LAME to 3.92. Christian, if you want to commit it feel free to redirect problems to me. Bye, Alexander. -- ...and that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 State Changed From-To: open->closed Committed, thanks! In article <200208161440.g7GEe5ne009408@freefall.freebsd.org> you write: > There's no need to remove "OPTIMIZATION": as long as nobody uses > "--enable-expopt={yes,full}" for configure, it doesn't get used. Wrong. Further down in configure, there's an assignment CFLAGS="${OPTIMIZATION} ${CFLAGS}". This isn't worth arguing about, just go and test it yourself. > What's wrong with adding "-Wall -pipe" to CFLAGS? *I* want to decide if I build with "-pipe" or without. And if I want to, then what's the point of "-pipe -pipe"? "-Wall" doesn't add anything outside development. Basically these happened to be nearby, so I removed them along with the other cruft that killed the compile on -CURRENT/alpha. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de In article <200208161520.g7GFK3Cq017168@freefall.freebsd.org> you write: > What about making patch optional? I mean, > if the user adds WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS, this patch is not applied. > Otherwise, it is applied per default. What's the gain? The whole point of making a port honor CFLAGS is that users can set them at their convenience. If somebody wants to build lame with super-duper optimization flags, they can just do so with $ CFLAGS="-O1000 -mfoo -fbar" make build (Personally, I'd go for something like CC=ccc CFLAGS=-fast.) > Check audio/liba52/Makefile for an example. Truly pointless, IMO. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de |