From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=192.55.52.115; helo=mga14.intel.com; envelope-from=liming.gao@intel.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6C1A2119C89D for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:17:45 -0800 (PST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Dec 2018 06:17:45 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,344,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="127272029" Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.203]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2018 06:17:45 -0800 Received: from shsmsx152.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.52) by FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:17:44 -0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.203]) by SHSMSX152.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.222]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:17:42 +0800 From: "Gao, Liming" To: 'Hiber He' CC: "Kinney, Michael D" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , "Laszlo Ersek (lersek@redhat.com)" Thread-Topic: [edk2] [RFC] Remove unused tool chain configuration in BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template Thread-Index: AdSNcRek6197s3I6R7y/qr6fFkc7nQCy0lUAABIYQ4AAO6JNgAASowVA Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:17:42 +0000 Message-ID: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E38BA12@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E384E67@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20181210115650.rr566vwiynd4en5j@bivouac.eciton.net> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E389792@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <35f28c8.8792.1679fefbb6a.Coremail.hiberhe@163.com> In-Reply-To: <35f28c8.8792.1679fefbb6a.Coremail.hiberhe@163.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYmU3YzFhMGEtMDVhNC00Y2U3LWI4N2YtMWE1Yjc3Yzk2MDEzIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoicExQekRVQzF0UTFKZXVwOWs1bFNYZ0hxZmQzOHVCRFhVaGF4blBCb0Foang5UUI1SVZLZkRvbVFCc1wvRlhIanYifQ== dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove unused tool chain configuration in BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:17:46 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiber: For unused tool chain, I propose to remove them all in edk2/master. They c= an still be found in previous edk2 release.=20 After remove obsolete tool chain, we still have more than 10 tool chains. = The remaining tool chain be use include syntax for further simplification. = So, could you submit BZ for it first? If you would like to contribute patch= to support include and simplify tools_def.txt, it will be fine.=20 Thanks Liming >-----Original Message----- >From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of >Hiber He >Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 9:02 AM >To: Gao, Liming >Cc: Kinney, Michael D ; edk2- >devel@lists.01.org; Laszlo Ersek (lersek@redhat.com) >Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Remove unused tool chain configuration in >BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template > >Hello, > > >I think it's better to separate different toolchains in different files an= d use >"include" to include them. This can significantly reduce the difficulty of >maintenance and anyone who still wants/has to use older toolchains can hav= e >a chance to follow the edk2-master. > > >Old toolchains can be marked as obsolete and deprecated, and be removed >after the change. The person who still want to use it is responsible for >maintaining and fixing bugs he found from then on. > > >This can aslo make it easier to add personal changes and future toolchains= . >The current "tools_def.template" is too huge and complicated. > > >I remember that someone should have suggested it before. > > >Best Regards, >Hiber >On 12/10/2018 20:38, Gao, Liming wrote: >Leif: > Thanks for your suggestion. I will work out the patch set serials to remo= ve >those tool chains. I don't remember the usage model of UNIXGCC. II will wa= it >for Rebecca response. > >Thanks >Liming >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org] >> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 7:57 PM >> To: Gao, Liming >> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Laszlo Ersek (lersek@redhat.com) >; afish@apple.com; Kinney, Michael D >> ; Rebecca Cran >> Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove unused tool chain configuration in >BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template >> >> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 02:42:35PM +0000, Gao, Liming wrote: >> > Hi, all >> > tools_def.template includes all tool chains. Some are not used any >> > more. And, there is no verification for them. So, I propose to >> > remove them. They are VS2003, VS2005, VS2008, VS2010, DDK3790, >> > UNIXGCC, GCC44, GCC45, GCC46, GCC47, ELFGCC, CYGGCC, ICC, ICC11, >> > MYTOOLS. If you still use some one of them, please let me know. >> >> This sounds good to me. >> >> However, may I suggest splitting this up into several patches, such >> that if we need to revert one of the deletions, we would not need to >> reinstate all of them. >> >> I would propose: >> - One patch for VS20nn >> - One patch for GCCnn >> - One patch for UNIXGCC, ELFGCC, CYGGCC >> >> I can't really judge what a suitable mashup/split between DDK3790, >> ICC, ICC11, and MYTOOLS would be. >> >> On a sidenote, I think Rebecca said at least FreeBSD were using >> UNIXGCC(?) since the plain GCC toolchain profiles did not support >> cross compiling. I am pretty sure that is not accurate these days - >> did you look into that after the community call? >> >> Regards. >> >> Leif >_______________________________________________ >edk2-devel mailing list >edk2-devel@lists.01.org >https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel >_______________________________________________ >edk2-devel mailing list >edk2-devel@lists.01.org >https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel