On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 10:20 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 07:45:56AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 17:45 -0500, Michał Bentkowski wrote: > > > Author: ecik > > > > > > Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/openarena/devel > > > In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10837 > > > > > > Modified Files: > > > openarena.spec > > > Log Message: > > > * Wed Jan 10 2007 Michał Bentkowski <mr.ecik at gmail.com> - 0.6.0-3 > > > - Do some ppc fixes > > > > > > > > > > > > Index: openarena.spec > > > > > +%ifarch ppc > > > +FLAGS="$FLAGS -maltivec -DNO_VM_COMPILED" > > > +%endif > > > > Errm? AFAICT, you must NOT pass -maltivec to cflags, because this > > changes code generation and the ABI. > > I think you mean -mabi=altivec ??? -maltivec is a macro and comprises many options. What -maltivec does in detail is very complicated, much more complicated than what most other -m* flags do. Also it has changed several times over GCC's history. I.e. the code being generated using it, is not necessarily guaranteed to be compatible nor to be runable on those ppc variants Fedora/RH supports. The questions I can't answer here are: * Is -maltivec allowed for powerpc Fedora packages or not? * Does -maltivec break compatibility to those cpu's powerpc Fedora supports or not? >From my experience with GCC and altivec (I am co-maintainer of powerpc-rtems-gcc), I am expecting it to break things, but I am not sufficiently familiar with powerpc-redhat-gcc to be able to judge. > > Only RPM_OPT_FLAGS is supposed to do so. The point here is: I am arguing NOBODY but the RH GCC maintainers rsp. those folks who specify RPM_OPT_FLAGS shall be allowed to play with code-generation flags. > > May-be somebody being more familiar with ppc-Fedora than I might be able > > to comment. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
