From: "Ard Biesheuvel" <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>
To: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>,
"devel@edk2.groups.io" <devel@edk2.groups.io>,
"bob.c.feng@intel.com" <bob.c.feng@intel.com>,
"liming.gao@intel.com" <liming.gao@intel.com>,
Tomas Pilar <Tomas.Pilar@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 16:22:21 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f1aae5a9-b788-a06c-a46b-c534e92b1b89@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200828191515.GC1191@vanye>
On 8/28/20 9:15 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 18:56:45 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>> Leif, please comment!
>>>
>>> I did propose reverting it. But I asked for Ard's feedback on the
>>> reason for why we had the break in the flags-chain, in case he
>>> remembered (and he was on holiday at the time).
>>>
>>> Basically, I'm wondering whether we're better off changing this
>>> behaviour or simply nuking GCC48.
>>
>> I use GCC48 daily -- it's the system compiler on RHEL7. My laptop runs
>> RHEL7 -- I value stability above all.
>
> That explains why it's still in then :)
>
> OK, so then cleaning it up would be nice.
>
Apologies, I had missed this discussion.
The reason the GCC flags are defined the way the are is because the
GCC4x toolchains for x86 were completely disjoint from the UNIXGCC and
other ones that were defined for ARM and IA64.
I agree that some cleanup would be nice, but if we are only going to
reshuffle tools_def variable assignments, I'm not sure it is worth it.
What I would like to see is a bit more structure, and some justification
why we are using all those different options, as i am not convinced they
are still needed even for GCC as far back as v4.8.
Also, even though I understand Laszlo's point about being able to use
the RHEL 7 system compiler, using other toolchains is trivially easy
with EDK2 (this is the whole point), and mainline EDK2 is arguably a
development tree, not a stable production tree for ~5 year old firmware
builds, and so I do think we should get rid of GCC48 even before RHEL7
goes EOL.
I'd even go so far as suggesting that [at some point in the not too
distant future], we rename GCC5 to GCCELFLTO (or something less
obnoxious) and phase out all the version based GCC toolchains entirely.
We might do the same for CLANG38 (the ELF based one), and depending on
whether PE/COFF linker support ever materializes for ARM, have a single
Clang+PE based toolchain as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-31 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-07 8:35 [PATCH V2 0/2] Add gcc flag for void* pointer arithmetics PierreGondois
2020-07-07 8:35 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] BaseTools: Add gcc flag to warn on void* pointer arithmetic PierreGondois
2020-07-16 9:07 ` [edk2-devel] " Yuwei Chen
2020-07-20 4:10 ` Bob Feng
2020-07-22 18:05 ` [edk2-devel] " Leif Lindholm
2020-07-22 21:13 ` Andrew Fish
2020-07-23 1:56 ` Bob Feng
2020-07-23 2:49 ` Andrew Fish
2020-07-23 9:33 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-07-24 3:56 ` Bob Feng
2020-07-24 9:01 ` PierreGondois
2020-07-24 11:05 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-07-24 11:03 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-07-07 8:35 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags PierreGondois
2020-07-20 4:11 ` Bob Feng
2020-07-30 12:08 ` [edk2-devel] " Leif Lindholm
2020-07-22 11:03 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-07-22 11:24 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-26 16:42 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-27 8:32 ` PierreGondois
2020-08-27 14:55 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-27 15:25 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-08-28 16:56 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-28 19:15 ` Leif Lindholm
2020-08-31 13:22 ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2020-08-31 13:43 ` 回复: " gaoliming
2020-08-31 14:03 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-31 14:37 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-08-31 16:18 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-31 16:27 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-08-31 17:14 ` Ard Biesheuvel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f1aae5a9-b788-a06c-a46b-c534e92b1b89@arm.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox