On 17 August 2015 at 21:16, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: > See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html > X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from <dw...@infradead.org> by > twosheds.infradead.org > See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html > > >> On 2015-08-17 11:25:41, David Woodhouse wrote: >>> On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 11:22 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote: >>> > Can't you use an elf-based GCC4.9 with the GCC49 toolchain instead? >>> >>> Not for testing LLP64, no. >> >> How/who is this helping? > > It was massively useful for testing the OpenSSL stuff I've been working on > recently. It showed up a number of issues which would otherwise only occur > a Windows build. >
Indeed. I don't use Windows or have access to any MS toolchains, so this is basically the only way to make sure my code is LLP64 clean. >>> > I'm not sure it makes sense to 'upgrade' the UNIXGCC toolchain to be >>> > based on GCC 4.9 rather than 4.3. I think GCC 4.3 was implicitly part >>> > of the definition of the UNIXGCC toolchain. (Well, maybe explicitly if >>> > you count the comment in tools_def :) This is why I'd rather deprecate >>> > it as a toolchain, and use the GCC4X toolchains instead. >>> >>> Or kill UNIXGCC and replace it with MINGWGCC so the historical baggage >>> is lost. >> >> Maybe MINGW49. But, please not before we figure out how to actually >> deprecate toolchains. :) >> Why *must* we have the version encoded into the name? For GCC4x, the differences are so minor that it is just maintenance overhead imo. I used CLANG35 instead of CLANG per your request, but I am definitely not going to add CLANG36 CLANG37 etc unless there is a real need. >> By 'figure out', I mean get to the point where we are okay with >> actually deprecating toolchains. > > Deprecating toolchains is pointless until we can ditch the badly > maintained 20th century crap that holds us back from using C99 code. Once > we have the political will to say "here's a nickel, kid. Buy yourself a > real compiler" and provide Windows-hosted GCC or LLVM based toolchains, > there really is no point. > Well, I would think that deprecating toolchains that don't support C99 is the first step towards allowing C99. We are kidding ourselves if we think that 'present in tools_def.template' and 'supported' are the same thing. In other words, many of these toolchains are already deprecated since nobody uses them, and they may not work anymore at all. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
