From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.9238.1590135423390007142 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 01:17:03 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: arm.com, ip: 217.140.110.172, mailfrom: ard.biesheuvel@arm.com) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE10830E; Fri, 22 May 2020 01:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.81] (unknown [10.37.8.250]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C519D3F52E; Fri, 22 May 2020 01:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2] ArmPkg/CompilerIntrinsicsLib: provide atomics intrinsics To: Laszlo Ersek , Leif Lindholm , devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: glin@suse.com, liming.gao@intel.com References: <20200520114448.26104-1-ard.biesheuvel@arm.com> <20200521112353.GS1923@vanye> <20200521131644.GT1923@vanye> <059e1db5-8228-63a8-09ab-bb0efcd95176@arm.com> <20200521141615.GU1923@vanye> <036f7682-0903-40aa-3743-6a383b742b88@redhat.com> From: "Ard Biesheuvel" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 10:16:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <036f7682-0903-40aa-3743-6a383b742b88@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/21/20 10:22 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 05/21/20 16:16, Leif Lindholm wrote: > >> OK, then I would vote *for* merging the patch regardless. We know how >> long some toolchain versions can stick around simply because they were >> mentioned in some blog post somewhere that ended up high in search >> rankings. >> >> Once gcc 10.2 is released (and we have verified the problem can be >> worked around elsewhere), I guess we could add a note saying "once all >> gcc 10.0 and 10.1 toolchains are considered obsolete, this file can >> be deleted". > > I think we can expect all distros that ship gcc-10 to eventually migrate > to gcc-10.2+. Until then, this patch should hopefully work. (I'm quite > annoyed by having to call the patch "temporary", as it feels very > technically impressive.) > Thanks, but it would be better not to use the code at all, unless we really need it. > So I think I agree with Leif, with a small modification to the idea: > rather than a *note* saying "back this out once 10.0 and 10.1 have been > replaced by 10.2+ in all 'large' distros", I would suggest filing a *BZ* > for the same. And I recommend making the new BZ dependent on > TianoCore#2723 (i.e. the present BZ). > Sure.