From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: intel.com, ip: 192.55.52.43, mailfrom: jordan.l.justen@intel.com) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by groups.io with SMTP; Sun, 19 May 2019 13:14:49 -0700 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 May 2019 13:14:48 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from kdemirta-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.252.131.252]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2019 13:14:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E431937@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <20190426144242.19024-1-liming.gao@intel.com> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E431937@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: "Jordan Justen" Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch 0/7] Add new CLANG8ELF tool chain for new LLVM/CLANG8 To: Ard Biesheuvel , Liming Gao , edk2-devel-groups-io Message-ID: <155829688766.24668.13457231493488240669@jljusten-skl> User-Agent: alot/0.8 Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 13:14:47 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2019-04-27 17:55:02, Liming Gao wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org] > >Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 12:33 AM > > > > > >This series confuses me. The existing CLANGxx toolchains already use > >GenFw and ELF to PE/COFF conversion, so the name CLANG8ELF is > >misleading. > > > LLVM/CLANG8.0 compiler supports to generate PE image or ELF image. > This tool chain is to generate ELF image and be converted to PE > image. I am investigating another tool chain with CLANG8.0 to > directly generate PE image. To differentiate them, I use the tool > chain name CLANG8ELF and CLANG8PE for them. Assuming CLANG8ELF and CLANG8PE were functional, would both be needed? It kind of sounds like this a half-finished investigation. I'm guessing that if CLANG8PE produces equal or better code, then it would be preferred. Therefore, shouldn't we just finish the investigation, and add a single CLANG8 toolchain at the end? Or, maybe to reflect that it mostly uses the LLVM tool stack we could name it LLVM8. -Jordan