On 05/22/20 15:27, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 5/22/20 12:54 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote: >> 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. >> > > OK, so i will leave it up to Liming and the stewards to decide whether > this gets incorporated ino the stable tag or not.
I'd delay it -- first, maybe have some more discussion around it, second, we can consider this "GCC10 feature enablement". IMO anyway. Thanks Laszlo > If it is, I would like > to fold in the fixup below > > --- a/ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/AArch64/Atomics.S > +++ b/ArmPkg/Library/CompilerIntrinsicsLib/AArch64/Atomics.S > @@ -53,10 +53,10 @@ > 0: ld\a\()xr\s r0_\sz, [x1] > .ifnc \insn, swp > \opc tmp1_\sz, r0_\sz, tmp0_\sz > + st\l\()xr\s w15, tmp1_\sz, [x1] > .else > - \opc tmp1_\sz, tmp0_\sz > + st\l\()xr\s w15, tmp0_\sz, [x1] > .endif > - st\l\()xr\s w15, tmp1_\sz, [x1] > cbnz w15, 0b > ret > fn_end __aarch64_\insn\()\sz\()\model > > to get rid of the redundant 'mov' for the SWP flavor of the atomics > helpers. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#60165): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/60165 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
