From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.67697.1680521976894967362
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Mon, 03 Apr 2023 04:39:37 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=ajf3Enqn;
 spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 170.10.133.124, mailfrom: kraxel@redhat.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
	s=mimecast20190719; t=1680521976;
	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:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=2Ym1QP6Wulr5Bw9zeOeLwGkWaA7MfCPCb4dmks6L+t4=;
	b=ajf3EnqnXu9PIKCe2h8XM+VG+iALRMPBHKZ+9w/l+P5tIcCo05J0/XB9MCJ150owQIh1rk
	zMAbn9VOvxBP6BOvnM2G4Hzqy0A6GGZI7jLOFK+5xHOnnEMnTxNk57LeCifz67sRySUAfG
	wEuf74NhvqV5C2K847c/qxmQLMtn2vY=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com
 [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS
 (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
 us-mta-62-V4Gxg-qwPoGgy1Np3dKqSw-1; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 07:39:32 -0400
X-MC-Unique: V4Gxg-qwPoGgy1Np3dKqSw-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 643C488B7A0;
	Mon,  3 Apr 2023 11:39:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.193.241])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D0392166B26;
	Mon,  3 Apr 2023 11:39:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 693FC1800393; Mon,  3 Apr 2023 13:39:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 13:39:29 +0200
From: "Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com>
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, rebecca@bsdio.com
Cc: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com>, 
	gaoliming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>, Oliver Smith-Denny <osd@smith-denny.com>, 
	Guomin Jiang <guomin.jiang@intel.com>, Xiaoyu Lu <xiaoyu1.lu@intel.com>, 
	Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>, Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>, 
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore@kernel.org>, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>, 
	Bob Feng <bob.c.feng@intel.com>, Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>, 
	Leif Lindholm <quic_llindhol@quicinc.com>, Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOWbnuWkjTogW2VkazItZGV2ZWxdIFtQQVRDSCB2MiAwMC8xM10gQmFzZVRvb2xzLENyeXB0b1BrZyxNZGVQa2csT3ZtZlBrZzogRGVsZXRlIENMQU5HMzUsQ0xBTkczOCxHQ0M0OCxHQ0M0OSwgcmVuYW1lIEdDQzUgdG8gR0NDLCB1cGRhdGUgQ0xBTkdEV0FSRiwgZGVsZXRlIFZTIDIwMDgtMjAxMywgRUJD?=
Message-ID: <b44cb573ubvcs56ymvspmtp2jqndlfncq5mgpiwjj4o5ylq5xr@nxnvdnl3si7b>
References: <20230328173111.759017-1-rebecca@bsdio.com>
 <02fb01d961dc$88d6acd0$9a840670$@byosoft.com.cn>
 <d3b93549-9473-6fba-5b9d-1f9b60b0e1dd@bsdio.com>
 <CAKbZUD30D5T5oOb7w7VX0P1a7nPHnNOa-X5daU8H0NnfMjbHNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <92a85636-3875-fd4d-06ff-dab9670370a5@bsdio.com>
 <lq5dlpcppxggji2afjryctgcufxbdevhc72olww3f7wmfqgga3@tdpncstywex3>
 <ad9e9269-1e10-8b31-0a83-405df42c22b4@bsdio.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ad9e9269-1e10-8b31-0a83-405df42c22b4@bsdio.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 05:33:10AM -0600, Rebecca Cran wrote:
> On 4/3/23 5:30 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > I'm wondering what the point in keeping a known-broken toolchain though.
> > It is apparently unused when nobody noticed the breakage ...
> 
> I agree. At this point I want to reach a consensus and get this patch series
> committed, even if that means leaving a known broken toolchain around.

Sure.  That question was meant more for gaoliming who expressed interest
in keeping it.  gaoliming?

I'd prefer to keep GCC only.  In case we decide to keep both LTO and
non-LTO variants the GCC + GCCNOLTE naming scheme looks fine to me.

take care,
  Gerd