Re: 回复: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/13] BaseTools,CryptoPkg,MdePkg,OvmfPkg: Delete CLANG35,CLANG38,GCC48,GCC49, rename GCC5 to GCC, update CLANGDWARF, delete VS 2008-2013, EBC

["Leif Lindholm" <quic_llindhol@quicinc.com>]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 13:55:19 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> I agree that we should either support a toolchain (and have CI
> coverage for it) or not, in which case we should just remove it.
> 
> However, the issues being reported are specific to SEV-SNP and TDX,
> which implies that they are specific to OVMF. And actually, the
> reported issue at
> 
> OvmfPkg/Library/CcExitLib/CcExitVcHandler.c:1358:10:
> error: ‘XCr0’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> 
> seems to be a valid concern.
> 
> So the point I am making is that OVMF gets a lot of attention in the
> open source project, but in the wider ecosystem, there are many
> platforms relying on this code base that don't incorporate the Coco
> components at all, so whether OVMF currently builds with GCC49 is not
> 100% relevant.
> 
> So I am leaning towards retaining GCC49 as GCCNOLTO, and getting some
> coverage for it in CI, as we occasionally get useful diagnostics out
> of it. But I am not going to fight any battles over it - I rarely use
> it myself, and so I will not miss it when it's gone.

I agree with all aspects of this statement. I would *prefer* to keep
it as a canary - with CI.

/
    Leif