Re: CFLAGS.... again

Hi, On 06/28/2013 02:16 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: >Hi, > while performing the review of pcsx2 I noticed that upstream customize heavily CFLAGS. > >https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455#c55 > >Although RPM_OPT_FLAGS are passed to the compiler, a great number of optimization flags (e.g. -fxxxxx) are also used. A few are in contrast with optimizations turned on by "-O2". > >The Fedora guidelines say: >"Overriding these flags for performance optimizations (for instance, -O3 instead of -O2) is generally discouraged. If you can present benchmarks that show a significant speedup for this particular code, this could be revisited on a case-by-case basis. Adding to and overriding or filtering parts of these flags is permitted if there's a good reason to do so; the rationale for doing so must be documented in the specfile. " > >Upstream says: >"PCSX2 is not an ordinary sofware. Most of the code executed are self-generated by PCSX2 itself (aka dynamic recompiler/virtual machine). That mean 1/ gcc flags have no much impact on speed 2/ some gcc flags (used to) crash PCSX2 It would need a careful test to check which flags can be enabled/disabled. Too much work for myself, but you're welcome ;). Note: strict aliasing is surely still broken." > >So, what to do? Asking the submitter to check is each flags work is a daunting task and probably not his job. Removing upstream flags might broke the emulator. Using upstream flags is against the guidelines. I'd go for the latter - but I'd like to check if other RPM Fusion packagers agree. I would say lets document in the spec why it is special, and use upstream's CFLAGS.