Bug 41710 - [port] lame update (fix CFLAGS)
[port] lame update (fix CFLAGS)
Status: Closed FIXED
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s)
Latest
Any Any
: Normal Affects Only Me
Assigned To: freebsd-ports
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2002-08-16 15:00 UTC by yoshiaki
Modified: 2002-08-16 18:40 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
file.diff (774 bytes, patch)
2002-08-16 15:00 UTC, yoshiaki
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description yoshiaki 2002-08-16 15:00:02 UTC

Fix: Fix CFLAGS
Christian Weisgerber(naddy@mips.inka.de) sugget me.
Comment 1 lioux freebsd_committer 2002-08-16 15:19:57 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
Comment 2 Alexander 2002-08-16 15:33:03 UTC
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
Comment 3 Christian Weisgerber freebsd_committer 2002-08-16 16:15:17 UTC
State Changed
From-To: open->closed

Committed, thanks!
Comment 4 naddy 2002-08-16 17:00:40 UTC
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
Comment 5 naddy 2002-08-16 17:44:25 UTC
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