iaoyu1 ; Wang, Jian J ;
> Yao, Jiewen ; Ard
> Biesheuvel ; Justen, Jordan L
> ; Feng, Bob C ;
> Andrew Fish
> Subject: Re: 回复: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/13]
> BaseTools,CryptoPkg,MdePkg,OvmfPkg: Delete CLANG35,CLANG38,GCC48,GCC49,
> rename GCC5 to GCC, update CLANGDWARF, de
] [PATCH v2 00/13]
BaseTools,CryptoPkg,MdePkg,OvmfPkg: Delete CLANG35,CLANG38,GCC48,GCC49,
rename GCC5 to GCC, update CLANGDWARF, delete VS 2008-2013, EBC
On 4/3/23 8:08 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
So you want gcc-6 specifically or just an older version instead of
latest? I could try add a RHEL-8
, Guomin
> ; Lu, Xiaoyu1 ; Wang, Jian J
> ; Yao, Jiewen
> ; Ard Biesheuvel ; Justen,
> Jordan L ; Feng,
> Bob C ; Andrew Fish ; Kinney, Michael
> D
> Subject: Re: 回复: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/13]
> BaseTools,CryptoPkg,MdePkg,OvmfPkg: Delete CLANG35,CLANG38,GCC48,GCC49,
&g
On 4/3/23 8:08 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
So you want gcc-6 specifically or just an older version instead of
latest? I could try add a RHEL-8 container (which ships gcc-8).
I'd want the oldest version that we support, so we know when we add
incompatible code.
From Pedro's reply, it sounds lik
> Given it's catching issues, I'd like to keep it too.
>
> In terms of CI coverage, I'd like to have both gcc 6 and gcc 12 running GCC
> and GCCNOLTO builds: we've already broken gcc 5 compatibility by introducing
> GoogleTest (which uses nullptr), so by doing builds with gcc 6 we'll be able
> to
On 4/3/23 7:44 AM, Pedro Falcato wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 1:27 PM Rebecca Cran wrote:
In terms of CI coverage, I'd like to have both gcc 6 and gcc 12 running
GCC and GCCNOLTO builds: we've already broken gcc 5 compatibility by
introducing GoogleTest (which uses nullptr), so by doing builds
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 1:27 PM Rebecca Cran wrote:
>
> In terms of CI coverage, I'd like to have both gcc 6 and gcc 12 running
> GCC and GCCNOLTO builds: we've already broken gcc 5 compatibility by
> introducing GoogleTest (which uses nullptr), so by doing builds with gcc
> 6 we'll be able to know
alcato
> > ; Gao, Liming
> > ; Oliver Smith-Denny ;
> > Jiang, Guomin ; Lu, Xiaoyu1
> > ; Wang, Jian J ; Yao, Jiewen
> > ; Ard Biesheuvel
> > ; Justen, Jordan L ;
> > Feng, Bob C ; Andrew Fish
> > ; Kinney, Michael D
> > Subject: Re: 回复: [edk2-de
; Pedro Falcato
> ; Gao, Liming
> ; Oliver Smith-Denny ; Jiang,
> Guomin ; Lu, Xiaoyu1
> ; Wang, Jian J ; Yao, Jiewen
> ; Ard Biesheuvel
> ; Justen, Jordan L ;
> Feng, Bob C ; Andrew Fish
> ; Kinney, Michael D
> Subject: Re: 回复: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/13]
> BaseT
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 14:15, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 13:55:19 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > I agree that we should either support a toolchain (and have CI
> > coverage for it) or not, in which case we should just remove it.
> >
> > However, the issues being reported are
On 4/3/23 6:15 AM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 13:55:19 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
I agree that we should either support a toolchain (and have CI
coverage for it) or not, in which case we should just remove it.
However, the issues being reported are specific to SEV-SNP and TD
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 13:55:19 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> I agree that we should either support a toolchain (and have CI
> coverage for it) or not, in which case we should just remove it.
>
> However, the issues being reported are specific to SEV-SNP and TDX,
> which implies that they are sp
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 13:39, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> 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 break
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 consens
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 kno
On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 03:50:33PM -0600, Rebecca Cran wrote:
> On 4/2/23 12:38 PM, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> > As expressed off-list on UEFI talkbox, I like GCCNOLTO, but I would
> > rather keep GCC5 as GCC5, for the next future iteration of "lets bump
> > a new toolchain because we need feature X".
On 4/2/23 12:38 PM, Pedro Falcato wrote:
As expressed off-list on UEFI talkbox, I like GCCNOLTO, but I would
rather keep GCC5 as GCC5, for the next future iteration of "lets bump
a new toolchain because we need feature X".
Given we've gone from GCC 5 through 12 with no new toolchains, I'd
pref
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 4:41 PM Rebecca Cran wrote:
>
> On 3/28/23 7:19 PM, gaoliming wrote:
>
> > GCC49 is one GCC tool chain without LTO enable option. GCC5 is another GCC
> > tool chain with LTO enable option.
> >
> > They have the different usage. I suggest to keep GCC49 and GCC5 both, and
>
ny ; Jiang, Guomin
> ; Lu, Xiaoyu1 ; Wang, Jian J
> ; Yao, Jiewen
> ; Ard Biesheuvel ; Justen,
> Jordan L ; Gerd
> Hoffmann ; Feng, Bob C ; Andrew Fish
> ; Leif Lindholm
> ; Kinney, Michael D
> Subject: Re: 回复: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 00/13]
> BaseTools,CryptoPkg,MdePk
On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 at 17:41, Rebecca Cran wrote:
>
> On 3/28/23 7:19 PM, gaoliming wrote:
>
> > GCC49 is one GCC tool chain without LTO enable option. GCC5 is another GCC
> > tool chain with LTO enable option.
> >
> > They have the different usage. I suggest to keep GCC49 and GCC5 both, and
> >
On 3/28/23 7:19 PM, gaoliming wrote:
GCC49 is one GCC tool chain without LTO enable option. GCC5 is another GCC tool
chain with LTO enable option.
They have the different usage. I suggest to keep GCC49 and GCC5 both, and also
keep their name as is.
Is anything still _using_ GCC49 though? Si
21 matches
Mail list logo
