On 08/31/20 15:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > mainline EDK2 is arguably a development tree
I agree. > not a stable production tree for ~5 year old firmware builds I agree with that too. But I don't think GCC48 is "holding back" edk2. I don't know of a firmware feature that suffers because I'd like to be able to build the tree with GCC48. (LTO is not a firmware feature; and NOOPT builds, which are important, don't / shouldn't enable LTO anyway.) I do agree that maintaining the BaseTools stuff that's related to GCC48 is a burden, technically speaking. Is it a big burden? Should I attempt to handle related issues? Official Software Collections / Developer Toolset add-ons exist for RHEL7: https://developers.redhat.com/products/developertoolset/overview https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_developer_toolset/9/html/user_guide/chap-red_hat_developer_toolset#sect-Red_Hat_Developer_Toolset-Compatibility I've played with them in the past. They weren't a good fit for me, as I recall. Anyway, I can check them out again, if I must. > and so I do think we should get rid of GCC48 even before RHEL7 goes > EOL. We might want to explore the Debian / Ubuntu status too (LTS). Thanks, Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#64836): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/64836 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
