On 08/27/20 17:25, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 16:55:11 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 08/27/20 10:32, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>>> Hello Laszlo,
>>> I thought Leif wanted to revert this modification. Should I apply
>> your requested changes, or should this patch be reverted?
>>
>> The *other* patch in this series has indeed been reverted:
>>
>> - original commit: dbd546a32d5a ("BaseTools: Add gcc flag to warn on
>> void* pointer arithmetic", 2020-07-21)
>>
>> - revert: 91e4bcb313f0 ("Revert "BaseTools: Add gcc flag to warn on
>> void* pointer arithmetic"", 2020-07-24)
>>
>> I'm not sure what the intent was ultimately with this patch though.
>> (I.e., keep it or revert it.) Personally I'm not calling for a revert;
>> I'd just like the "-Os" duplication to be eliminated. Also it doesn't
>> need to occur for this stable tag, just eventually.
>>
>> Leif, please comment!
>
> I did propose reverting it. But I asked for Ard's feedback on the
> reason for why we had the break in the flags-chain, in case he
> remembered (and he was on holiday at the time).
>
> Basically, I'm wondering whether we're better off changing this
> behaviour or simply nuking GCC48.
I use GCC48 daily -- it's the system compiler on RHEL7. My laptop runs
RHEL7 -- I value stability above all.
Thanks
Laszlo
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#64758): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/64758
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
