Re: [edk2-devel] [RFT PATCH v2 1/6] BaseTools/tools_def XCODE: Link X64 with -read_only_relocs suppress

["Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com>]

  Hi,

> > However, those issues might have been fixed and it’s not impossible
> > Vitaly will give it another try eventually. In any case, I think our
> > downstream variant of XCODE5 doesn’t require any level of special
> > care, so it doesn’t really matter to us.
> >
> > (Another thing to consider is despite the bugs are fixed, mtoc has a
> > much higher overall code quality and more safety checks than GenFw,
> > which is used for CLANGDWARF.)
> >
> > The upstream toolchain has no future in my opinion, as mtoc has been
> > deprecated and already failed to compile certain things (like it
> > lacked Standalone MM types). The reason it still “worked” was
> > because homebrew silently shipped a variant with a subset of our
> > ocmtoc patches. So as I see it, taking our changes or dropping it
> > entirely are the only sane options, even regardless of this
> > particular issue you’re trying to fix. Personally, I have no
> > preference.
> 
> I think both GenFw and mtoc are horrible hacks that should be phased
> out once we can - with good cross-architecture Clang support for
> native PE binaries, I'd hope macOS could move to CLANGPDB for all
> targets.

What is the difference between CLANGPDB and CLANGDWARF?  Just the debug
info format?

What is the support status?  Is CLANGDWARF expected to build edk2 on all
platforms?  Including cross-builds?  Or will that work only after
Rebecca's toolchain fix/cleanup series being merged?

Should we eventually switch from gcc to clang on linux too?

take care,
  Gerd