From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.68462.1680524145528600908 for ; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 05:15:45 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="body hash did not verify" header.i=@quicinc.com header.s=qcppdkim1 header.b=OZAxixTe; spf=permerror, err=parse error for token &{10 18 %{ir}.%{v}.%{d}.spf.has.pphosted.com}: invalid domain name (domain: quicinc.com, ip: 205.220.168.131, mailfrom: quic_llindhol@quicinc.com) Received: from pps.filterd (m0279862.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 333C7Sri015642; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 12:15:34 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : in-reply-to; s=qcppdkim1; bh=uDFvKTiBrdxn1P4XxOTzLs4h/1JiXzd6Px9ocakxS4g=; b=OZAxixTethLuJeetwip0G3UmVNcIkRywjIrVPgcX2y2xn7cc5yDvS7STuKtnn12ku/+o J+j0Khc/dnlzKz96R4zV01l0MfmmshIwSgMaQY1rzXNTaB35IGa/a6ViTQQSFNQURfeP SX5AQtHZTskWUl6z1GuzmowI+WfCDe6eszsyIFQPmjVbdlcxtJbYF2jCM1zwL8oV38IP 864zYV6jWMjdLHDKKlY8NKbIBvkWNmih9cY2lBgH0Tyy1rCYV5GiRD5Yx4TyzcoLUJlA +URt0LV9QCp8pFBHvJWf2YxQtiDflDPmKIgzHWn0nj4lf8djgzb47ruc3C3KG3F4N/E8 lg== Received: from nasanppmta05.qualcomm.com (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pquxtgbr3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 03 Apr 2023 12:15:33 +0000 Received: from nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com [10.45.79.139]) by NASANPPMTA05.qualcomm.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTPS id 333CFWAZ011689 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Apr 2023 12:15:32 GMT Received: from qc-i7.hemma.eciton.net (10.80.80.8) by nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.45.79.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.986.42; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 05:15:29 -0700 Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 13:15:25 +0100 From: "Leif Lindholm" To: Ard Biesheuvel CC: Gerd Hoffmann , , , Pedro Falcato , gaoliming , Oliver Smith-Denny , Guomin Jiang , Xiaoyu Lu , Jian J Wang , Jiewen Yao , Ard Biesheuvel , Jordan Justen , Bob Feng , Andrew Fish , Michael D Kinney Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOWbnuWkjTogW2VkazItZGV2ZWxdIFtQQVRDSCB2MiAwMC8xM10gQmFzZVRvb2xzLENyeXB0b1BrZyxNZGVQa2csT3ZtZlBrZzogRGVsZXRlIENMQU5HMzUsQ0xBTkczOCxHQ0M0OCxHQ0M0OSwgcmVuYW1lIEdDQzUgdG8gR0NDLCB1cGRhdGUgQ0xBTkdEV0FSRiwgZGVsZXRlIFZTIDIwMDgtMjAxMywgRUJD?= Message-ID: References: <20230328173111.759017-1-rebecca@bsdio.com> <02fb01d961dc$88d6acd0$9a840670$@byosoft.com.cn> <92a85636-3875-fd4d-06ff-dab9670370a5@bsdio.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.52.223.231) To nasanex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.45.79.139) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-GUID: tVgQlP_zDO44zVuoQ1ZqGQ2l31oyyigC X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: tVgQlP_zDO44zVuoQ1ZqGQ2l31oyyigC X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.942,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.170.22 definitions=2023-04-03_08,2023-04-03_01,2023-02-09_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2303200000 definitions=main-2304030092 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com id 333C7Sri015642 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. >=20 > 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 >=20 > OvmfPkg/Library/CcExitLib/CcExitVcHandler.c:1358:10: > error: =E2=80=98XCr0=E2=80=99 may be used uninitialized [-Werror=3Dmayb= e-uninitialized] >=20 > seems to be a valid concern. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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