Hello Laszlo, I thought Leif wanted to revert this modification. Should I apply your requested changes, or should this patch be reverted?
Regards, Pierre -----Original Message----- From: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 5:43 PM To: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gond...@arm.com> Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; bob.c.f...@intel.com; liming....@intel.com; Tomas Pilar <tomas.pi...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address) <l...@nuviainc.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@arm.com> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags On 07/22/20 13:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hi Pierre, > > On 07/07/20 10:35, PierreGondois wrote: >> From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gond...@arm.com> >> >> GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS has no dependency on GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS. >> By definition, there should be such dependency. >> >> The outcomes of this patch is that GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS and other >> dependent configurations will inherit from the additional "-Os" flag. >> The "-Os" flag optimizes a build in size, not breaking any build. In >> a gcc command line, the last optimization flag has precedence. This >> means that this "-Os" flag will be overriden by a more specific >> optimization configuration, provided that this more specific flag is >> appended at the end of the CC_FLAGS. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gond...@arm.com> >> Suggested-by: Tomas Pilar <tomas.pi...@arm.com> >> --- >> >> The changes can be seen at: >> https://github.com/PierreARM/edk2/commits/831_Add_gcc_flag_warning_v2 >> >> Notes: >> v2: >> - Make GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS dependent on >> GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS. [Tomas] >> >> BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template >> b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template >> index >> 397b011ba38f97f81f314f8641ac8bb95d5a2197..a1fd27b1adba8769949b7d628d7 >> fbed49fe24267 100755 >> --- a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template >> +++ b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template >> @@ -1952,7 +1952,7 @@ DEFINE GCC_RISCV64_RC_FLAGS = -I binary -O >> elf64-littleriscv -B riscv >> # GCC Build Flag for included header file list generation >> DEFINE GCC_DEPS_FLAGS = -MMD -MF $@.deps >> >> -DEFINE GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS = -g -fshort-wchar -fno-builtin >> -fno-strict-aliasing -Wall -Werror -Wno-array-bounds -ffunction-sections >> -fdata-sections -include AutoGen.h -fno-common >> -DSTRING_ARRAY_NAME=$(BASE_NAME)Strings >> +DEFINE GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS) >> -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -DSTRING_ARRAY_NAME=$(BASE_NAME)Strings >> DEFINE GCC48_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON = -nostdlib -Wl,-n,-q,--gc-sections -z >> common-page-size=0x20 >> DEFINE GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS) -m32 >> -march=i586 -malign-double -fno-stack-protector -D EFI32 >> -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -Wno-address >> DEFINE GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS) -m64 >> -fno-stack-protector "-DEFIAPI=__attribute__((ms_abi))" >> -maccumulate-outgoing-args -mno-red-zone -Wno-address -mcmodel=small -fpie >> -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -Wno-address >> > > As the commit message states, this change makes GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS inherit > "-Os". > > It is true that all the NOOPT_GCC flags override "-Os" with "-O0": > > NOOPT_GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC48_ARM_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_ARM_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC48_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC49_ARM_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_ARM_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC49_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC5_ARM_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_ARM_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > NOOPT_GCC5_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS) -O0 > > However, *some* of the DEBUG and RELEASE flags now have two "-Os" flags: > > DEBUG_GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -Os > RELEASE_GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -Os > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable > DEBUG_GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS) -Os > RELEASE_GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS) -Os > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable > DEBUG_GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -Os > RELEASE_GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -Os > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-const-variable > DEBUG_GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS) -Os > RELEASE_GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS) -Os > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-const-variable > DEBUG_GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -flto -Os > RELEASE_GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -flto -Os > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-const-variable > DEBUG_GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS) -flto -DUSING_LTO > -Os > RELEASE_GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS = DEF(GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS) -flto -DUSING_LTO > -Os -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-const-variable > > (The ARM and AARCH64 DEBUG/RELEASE GCC options don't seem to be > affected, as they have relied on inherited -- not open-coded -- "-Os" > options from much earlier. So now they do not suffer from this > duplication.) > > The point of this patch was a kind of "normalization", so I think the work > isn't complete until the duplication is undone, i.e., the explicit "-Os" flag > is removed from the last twelve defines. > > Can you submit a follow-up patch please? I have not received an answer, and I'm not aware of a follow-up patch being on the list; so now I've filed: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2928 Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#64676): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/64676 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/75351533/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
