From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web09.4295.1580895008650789577 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 01:30:08 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: intel.com, ip: 192.55.52.136, mailfrom: liming.gao@intel.com) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Feb 2020 01:30:08 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,405,1574150400"; d="scan'208";a="264159063" Received: from fmsmsx108.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.206]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2020 01:30:08 -0800 Received: from shsmsx605.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.215) by FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 01:30:07 -0800 Received: from shsmsx606.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.216) by SHSMSX605.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.215) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:30:06 +0800 Received: from shsmsx606.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.216]) by SHSMSX606.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.216]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:30:06 +0800 From: "Liming Gao" To: "Kinney, Michael D" , "devel@edk2.groups.io" , Laszlo Ersek CC: "Feng, Bob C" , Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch] BaseTools tools_def.template: Add back -fno-pie option in GCC49 tool chain Thread-Topic: [edk2-devel] [Patch] BaseTools tools_def.template: Add back -fno-pie option in GCC49 tool chain Thread-Index: AQHV21LoFApfrA61gkm8yraSWGLiqagK+WBQ//+4OYCAAUxygA== Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 09:30:06 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20200204045456.241-1-liming.gao@intel.com> <9cfe929c-0448-d7d2-2ce1-cd491ce16083@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.36] MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: liming.gao@intel.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike: GCC IA32 arch requires -fno-pie option. You can check the commit c25d390= 5523ae4961bb039b1aba597983f7e3e4e "BaseTools/tools_def IA32: disable PIE co= de generation explicitly".=20 GCC X64 arch requires -fpie option. You can check the commit f49513f666e= d25d24bdf3a02a1fdb5d18ae081c0 " BaseTools/tools_def: switch GCC/X64 to the = PIE small model". This patch is to add back -fno-pie option for GCC IA32 arch. GCC X64 arc= h still requires -fpie option. So, your change is still required for X64 ho= st. Thanks Liming > -----Original Message----- > From: Kinney, Michael D > Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:22 AM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming ; Laszlo Ers= ek ; Kinney, Michael D > > Cc: Feng, Bob C ; Ard Biesheuvel > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [Patch] BaseTools tools_def.template: Add back= -fno-pie option in GCC49 tool chain >=20 > Liming, >=20 > Can you please provide a few more details on the failure. >=20 > For the UnitTestFrameworkPkg patch set, I had to add the > following to get host based unit test applications to build > and run. I was seeing link failures between FW libs and > host libs when building the POSIX host application. >=20 > [BuildOptions] > GCC:*_*_*_CC_FLAGS =3D -fno-pie >=20 > I think with the proposed change below, I could remove > this. Do you agree? >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Mike >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: devel@edk2.groups.io On > > Behalf Of Liming Gao > > Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 4:52 AM > > To: Laszlo Ersek ; > > devel@edk2.groups.io > > Cc: Feng, Bob C ; Ard Biesheuvel > > ; Gao, Liming > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch] BaseTools > > tools_def.template: Add back -fno-pie option in GCC49 > > tool chain > > > > Laszlo: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Laszlo Ersek > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:02 PM > > > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming > > > > > Cc: Feng, Bob C ; Ard > > Biesheuvel > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch] BaseTools > > tools_def.template: Add back -fno-pie option in GCC49 > > tool chain > > > > > > (+Ard) > > > > > > On 02/04/20 05:54, Liming Gao wrote: > > > > BZ: > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D2502 > > > > This option is required to make GCC49 tool chain > > work with the high > > > > version GCC compiler. > > > > > > > > Cc: Bob Feng > > > > Signed-off-by: Liming Gao > > > > --- > > > > BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template | 4 ++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template > > b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template > > > > index feee2bbf16..d02424ae44 100755 > > > > --- a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template > > > > +++ b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template > > > > @@ -1974,7 +1974,7 @@ DEFINE > > GCC48_ARM_ASLDLINK_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC_ARM_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) -Wl,--oformat > > > > DEFINE GCC48_AARCH64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC_AARCH64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) > > > > DEFINE GCC48_ASLCC_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC_ASLCC_FLAGS) > > > > > > > > -DEFINE GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) > > > > +DEFINE GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -fno-pic -fno-pie > > > > DEFINE GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS) > > > > DEFINE GCC49_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON =3D -nostdlib - > > Wl,-n,-q,--gc-sections -z common-page-size=3D0x40 > > > > DEFINE GCC49_IA32_X64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC49_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON) -Wl,-- > > defsym=3DPECOFF_HEADER_SIZE=3D0 > > > DEF(GCC_DLINK2_FLAGS_COMMON) -Wl,-- > > entry,ReferenceAcpiTable -u ReferenceAcpiTable > > > > @@ -1997,7 +1997,7 @@ DEFINE > > GCC49_ARM_ASLDLINK_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC48_ARM_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) > > > > DEFINE GCC49_AARCH64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC48_AARCH64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) > > > > DEFINE GCC49_ASLCC_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC48_ASLCC_FLAGS) > > > > > > > > -DEFINE GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -fno-pic -fno-pie > > > > +DEFINE GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) > > > > DEFINE GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS) > > > > DEFINE GCC5_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON =3D > > DEF(GCC49_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON) > > > > DEFINE GCC5_IA32_X64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS =3D > > DEF(GCC49_IA32_X64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) > > > > > > > > > > - What has changed relative to commit 11d0cd23dd1b > > ("BaseTools/tools_def > > > IA32: drop -no-pie linker option for GCC49", 2018-06- > > 18)? > > > > > > - Also, if we are reverting one half of 11d0cd23dd1b > > (the compiler > > > flags), shouldn't we then revert the other half too > > (the linker flags)? > > > > Yes. Half change is revert. CC_FLAGS is added back. > > DLINK flag is not, > > because GCC4.9 doesn't know the link option -no-pie. > > But, GCC 4.9 accepts the CC option -fno-pie. > > I verify this change. CC flags -fno-pie can resolve the > > build failure with GCC7.4. I also see -fno-pie option > > Is in GCC ARM and AARCH64 arch. So, I think this change > > is enough. > > > > > > > > - The commit message says, "work with the high > > version GCC compiler". > > > What does that mean? If it is 4.9.x, with x>2, then I > > agree the patch is > > > justified (because commit 11d0cd23dd1b was apparently > > made for 4.9.2). > > > But if the phrase stands for gcc8 or so (just an > > example), then I don't > > > think the patch is a good idea; users of gcc8 can > > just specify the GCC5 > > > toolchain. > > > > > > Ah, indeed, I need only look at TianoCore#2502: > > > > > > "GCC49 tool chain meets with the build failure when > > GCC7.4 compiler". > > > > > > So I think this approach is wrong. Unless there is a > > new gcc-4.9.x > > > release, i.e., after gcc-4.9.2, I think we still need > > commit > > > 11d0cd23dd1b in place. And, please use GCC5 for gcc- > > 7.4 -- is there a > > > problem with that? > > > > By design, GCC49 can work with the high version GCC > > compiler like GCC5. > > GCC49 is the tool chain without LTO enable. GCC5 is the > > tool chain with LTO. > > So, they are for two different GCC setting. They should > > both support > > high version GCC compiler. GCC49 supported GCC compiler > > version is from GCC 4.9. > > GCC5 supported GCC compiler version is from GCC 5.0. I > > know GCC49 or GCC5 tool chain > > name brings a little confuse. I will add more detail > > info in tools_def.txt for them. > > > > Thanks > > Liming > > > > > > Thanks > > > Laszlo > > > > > >=20