From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.20639.1590696202140700372 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 13:03:22 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=T2wbFhuD; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 207.211.31.81, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1590696201; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3vciNaq77zmlKTsK7oc5l8Gj4tXvYnCfsRWFsA3POBs=; b=T2wbFhuDyO3Xp/oBFOlxGPPa+s5Zz5q6ZLYll2g5ZdtKxa+gaItfbuwNmmZ6ti8UkippaH rsWBGt9rZMBseFYomSqyAX+1IesSyrOLphekaa/KFMh35Nc0zmQ3BS4DidaS9qmhfQWgUy lvcJJ9wLToYF8JlvkyOUXbVJNSH7V0Y= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-407-N9CvkWBkN9-2G5aitOaQKg-1; Thu, 28 May 2020 16:03:07 -0400 X-MC-Unique: N9CvkWBkN9-2G5aitOaQKg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F921005510; Thu, 28 May 2020 20:03:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-112-101.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.101]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585B462932; Thu, 28 May 2020 20:03:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdePkg/Include: AARCH64: disable outline atomics on GCC 10.2+ To: Leif Lindholm Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , devel@edk2.groups.io, liming.gao@intel.com, philmd@redhat.com, mliska@suse.cz References: <20200522101202.15016-1-ard.biesheuvel@arm.com> <36effdcd-91a7-da00-855d-570e64d650b8@redhat.com> <5587f0f0-9f30-62ce-9d07-5eed4ac6daa7@arm.com> <20200526143725.GM1923@vanye> <0f2f90b9-e2fe-5658-e507-299a387e0ce5@redhat.com> <20200528100515.GC1923@vanye> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: <6d6e3bb8-647c-42c4-5143-f64f5e6ba81b@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 22:03:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200528100515.GC1923@vanye> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/28/20 12:05, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:12:23 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>>>> Oh and I think both this patch and the assembly language implementation >>>>> for the atomics should be delayed after the stable tag. gcc-10 is a new >>>>> toolchain; so even if we don't introduce a new toolchain tag such as >>>>> GCC10 for it, whatever we do in order to make it work, that's feature >>>>> enablement in my book. >>>> >>>> Works for me. By the time the next stable tag comes around, early adopters >>>> that are now on GCC 10.1 will likely have moved to 10.2 by that time, and so >>>> we may not need the assembly patch at all. >>> >>> I'm not ecstatic that we'll be releasing the first stable tag known to >>> break with current toolchains. >> >> If this breakage affects "current toolchains", then why was >> only reported on >> 2020-May-19, four days into the soft feature freeze? > > I agree the timing is crap. > >>> This isn't just affecting random crazies pulling latest toolchains >>> down, but people using their distro defaults (native or cross). >> >> ... "people using their distro defaults" to *not* build upstream edk2 >> until 2020-May-19, apparently. > > Or distro defaults changing in between. I mean, we could say "Arch > is the same as any other distro's unstable", but I wouldn't want to go > down that route - I know people who use it for developing also for > qemu and linux. > > Argh, I also just realised the error report I saw two days after > Ard's intrinsics patch hit the list was not a public report. Yes, if > this had affected only in-development/unstable distributions, I agree > this isn't something we should try to deal with upstream. > >>> I don't recall if 10.1 ended up being default in F32, but it was >>> definitely included. In Arch, it does appear default. >>> >>> Debian/Ubuntu are unaffected in their stable releases. >>> >>> I agree it's a transitional issue, but I would really prefer to have >>> the intrinsics included in the release. >> >> OK, let's delay the release then, by a few days. I agree the present >> patch may qualify as a bugfix, but the other patch with the assembly >> language intrinsics doesn't. If it's really that important to have in >> the upcoming stable tag, then it's worth delaying the tag for. I'm fine >> delaying the release for it; it wouldn't be without precedent. > > I would argue it *is* a bugfix, since it only has an effect on builds > that would otherwise fail. OK. That's a good argument. From my POV, feel free to merge (both patches). Thanks Laszlo > But I also do think it is important enough > to delay the release if we feel that is necessary. > > / > Leif > >> Also, I think Ard's assembly language patch needs a Tested-by from Gary >> at the least (reporter of TianoCore#2723). Please reach out to him in >> that thread. >> >> ... More precisely, please *ping* Gary for a Tested-by in that thread, >> because Ard CC'd him from the start, and even credited Gary in the >> commit message. >> >> Thanks, >> Laszlo >> >