From: "Leif Lindholm" <leif@nuviainc.com>
To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>,
"devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>,
"bob.c.feng@intel.com" <bob.c.feng@intel.com>,
"liming.gao@intel.com" <liming.gao@intel.com>,
Tomas Pilar <Tomas.Pilar@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <Ard.Biesheuvel@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:25:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200827152511.GX1191@vanye> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <518916e0-53cc-732b-cf1b-1e1b8d10a3b3@redhat.com>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 16:55:11 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 08/27/20 10:32, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> > Hello Laszlo,
> > I thought Leif wanted to revert this modification. Should I apply
> your requested changes, or should this patch be reverted?
>
> The *other* patch in this series has indeed been reverted:
>
> - original commit: dbd546a32d5a ("BaseTools: Add gcc flag to warn on
> void* pointer arithmetic", 2020-07-21)
>
> - revert: 91e4bcb313f0 ("Revert "BaseTools: Add gcc flag to warn on
> void* pointer arithmetic"", 2020-07-24)
>
> I'm not sure what the intent was ultimately with this patch though.
> (I.e., keep it or revert it.) Personally I'm not calling for a revert;
> I'd just like the "-Os" duplication to be eliminated. Also it doesn't
> need to occur for this stable tag, just eventually.
>
> Leif, please comment!
I did propose reverting it. But I asked for Ard's feedback on the
reason for why we had the break in the flags-chain, in case he
remembered (and he was on holiday at the time).
Basically, I'm wondering whether we're better off changing this
behaviour or simply nuking GCC48.
Regards,
Leif
> Thanks!
> Laszlo
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pierre
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 5:43 PM
> > To: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
> > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; bob.c.feng@intel.com; liming.gao@intel.com; Tomas Pilar <Tomas.Pilar@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address) <leif@nuviainc.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <Ard.Biesheuvel@arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags
> >
> > On 07/22/20 13:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> Hi Pierre,
> >>
> >> On 07/07/20 10:35, PierreGondois wrote:
> >>> From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
> >>>
> >>> GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS has no dependency on GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS.
> >>> By definition, there should be such dependency.
> >>>
> >>> The outcomes of this patch is that GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS and other
> >>> dependent configurations will inherit from the additional "-Os" flag.
> >>> The "-Os" flag optimizes a build in size, not breaking any build. In
> >>> a gcc command line, the last optimization flag has precedence. This
> >>> means that this "-Os" flag will be overriden by a more specific
> >>> optimization configuration, provided that this more specific flag is
> >>> appended at the end of the CC_FLAGS.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
> >>> Suggested-by: Tomas Pilar <Tomas.Pilar@arm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> The changes can be seen at:
> >>> https://github.com/PierreARM/edk2/commits/831_Add_gcc_flag_warning_v2
> >>>
> >>> Notes:
> >>> v2:
> >>> - Make GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS dependent on
> >>> GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS. [Tomas]
> >>>
> >>> BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template
> >>> b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template
> >>> index
> >>> 397b011ba38f97f81f314f8641ac8bb95d5a2197..a1fd27b1adba8769949b7d628d7
> >>> fbed49fe24267 100755
> >>> --- a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template
> >>> +++ b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template
> >>> @@ -1952,7 +1952,7 @@ DEFINE GCC_RISCV64_RC_FLAGS = -I binary -O elf64-littleriscv -B riscv
> >>> # GCC Build Flag for included header file list generation
> >>> DEFINE GCC_DEPS_FLAGS = -MMD -MF $@.deps
> >>>
> >>> -DEFINE GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS = -g -fshort-wchar -fno-builtin -fno-strict-aliasing -Wall -Werror -Wno-array-bounds -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -include AutoGen.h -fno-common -DSTRING_ARRAY_NAME=$(BASE_NAME)Strings
> >>> +DEFINE GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS) -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -DSTRING_ARRAY_NAME=$(BASE_NAME)Strings
> >>> DEFINE GCC48_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON = -nostdlib -Wl,-n,-q,--gc-sections -z common-page-size=0x20
> >>> DEFINE GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS) -m32 -march=i586 -malign-double -fno-stack-protector -D EFI32 -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -Wno-address
> >>> DEFINE GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS) -m64 -fno-stack-protector "-DEFIAPI=__attribute__((ms_abi))" -maccumulate-outgoing-args -mno-red-zone -Wno-address -mcmodel=small -fpie -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -Wno-address
> >>>
> >>
> >> As the commit message states, this change makes GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS inherit "-Os".
> >>
> >> It is true that all the NOOPT_GCC flags override "-Os" with "-O0":
> >>
> >> NOOPT_GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC48_ARM_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_ARM_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC48_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC49_ARM_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_ARM_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC49_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC5_ARM_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_ARM_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >> NOOPT_GCC5_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS) -O0
> >>
> >> However, *some* of the DEBUG and RELEASE flags now have two "-Os" flags:
> >>
> >> DEBUG_GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -Os
> >> RELEASE_GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -Os -Wno-unused-but-set-variable
> >> DEBUG_GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS) -Os
> >> RELEASE_GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS) -Os -Wno-unused-but-set-variable
> >> DEBUG_GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -Os
> >> RELEASE_GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -Os -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-const-variable
> >> DEBUG_GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS) -Os
> >> RELEASE_GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS) -Os -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-const-variable
> >> DEBUG_GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -flto -Os
> >> RELEASE_GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -flto -Os -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-const-variable
> >> DEBUG_GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS) -flto -DUSING_LTO -Os
> >> RELEASE_GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS) -flto -DUSING_LTO -Os -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-const-variable
> >>
> >> (The ARM and AARCH64 DEBUG/RELEASE GCC options don't seem to be
> >> affected, as they have relied on inherited -- not open-coded -- "-Os"
> >> options from much earlier. So now they do not suffer from this
> >> duplication.)
> >>
> >> The point of this patch was a kind of "normalization", so I think the work isn't complete until the duplication is undone, i.e., the explicit "-Os" flag is removed from the last twelve defines.
> >>
> >> Can you submit a follow-up patch please?
> >
> > I have not received an answer, and I'm not aware of a follow-up patch being on the list; so now I've filed:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2928
> >
> > Thanks
> > Laszlo
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-27 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-07 8:35 [PATCH V2 0/2] Add gcc flag for void* pointer arithmetics PierreGondois
2020-07-07 8:35 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] BaseTools: Add gcc flag to warn on void* pointer arithmetic PierreGondois
2020-07-16 9:07 ` [edk2-devel] " Yuwei Chen
2020-07-20 4:10 ` Bob Feng
2020-07-22 18:05 ` [edk2-devel] " Leif Lindholm
2020-07-22 21:13 ` Andrew Fish
2020-07-23 1:56 ` Bob Feng
2020-07-23 2:49 ` Andrew Fish
2020-07-23 9:33 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-07-24 3:56 ` Bob Feng
2020-07-24 9:01 ` PierreGondois
2020-07-24 11:05 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-07-24 11:03 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-07-07 8:35 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags PierreGondois
2020-07-20 4:11 ` Bob Feng
2020-07-30 12:08 ` [edk2-devel] " Leif Lindholm
2020-07-22 11:03 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-07-22 11:24 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-26 16:42 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-27 8:32 ` PierreGondois
2020-08-27 14:55 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-27 15:25 ` Leif Lindholm [this message]
2020-08-28 16:56 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-28 19:15 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-08-31 13:22 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-08-31 13:43 ` 回复: " gaoliming
2020-08-31 14:03 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-31 14:37 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-08-31 16:18 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-31 16:27 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-31 17:14 ` Ard Biesheuvel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200827152511.GX1191@vanye \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox