On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 22:22:58 +0200, 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.) > > 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"
That isn't actually exatly what I meant - I meant properly obsolete as in "we are now reasonably certain no one is still using some silly ancient cross compiler they checked into their build infrastructure years ago". > , 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). But I don't object to that approach. Regards, Leif -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#60129): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/60129 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/74347980/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
