Re: [PATCH 1/3] BaseTools GCC: move -c compiler flag to build rules

[Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>]

On 2 August 2016 at 17:01, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:39:30PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> In order to be able to share the compiler flags with the linker (which
>> is required for LTO since it involves the linker doing code generation
>> based on the LTO bytecode), move the -c GCC argument to the build rules,
>> and drop it from the GCC CC_FLAGS definitions in tools_def.
>>
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template | 16 +++++++++-------
>>  BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template  | 10 +++++-----
>>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template b/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template
>> index 9adf3918e42e..7d9f8ca075c2 100644
>> --- a/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template
>> +++ b/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template
>> @@ -130,7 +130,10 @@
>>      <Command.MSFT, Command.INTEL>
>>          "$(CC)" /Fo${dst} $(CC_FLAGS) $(INC) ${src}
>>
>> -    <Command.GCC, Command.GCCLD, Command.RVCT>
>> +    <Command.GCC, Command.GCCLD>
>> +        "$(CC)" $(CC_FLAGS) -c -o ${dst} $(INC) ${src}
>> +
>> +    <Command.RVCT>
>
> Apart from the slightly larger patch set, is there any reason not to
> split out the RVCT handling here and fix up tools_def.template for it
> too?
>

In what sense do we need to fix up tools_def for RVCT?