On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 09:39:56 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > - Remove GCC48 and GCC49.
> >
> > GCC49 is one GCC tool chain without LTO enable option. GCC5 is another GCC
> > tool chain with LTO enable option.
> >
> > They have the different usage. I suggest to keep GCC49 and GCC5 both, and
> > also keep their name as is.
> >
>
> Could we perhaps do
>
> GCC49 -> GCC
> GCC5 -> GCCLTO
Might I suggest the inverse?
GCC49 -> GCCNOLTO
GCC5 -> GCC
I feel disabling LTO should be seen as the nonstandard approach.
Regardless, we (including me) *should* have changed those names as
soon as we realised we didn't need a GCC51, and the misleading naming
still frequently causes confusion. So I don't think keeping the
current names should be considered an option.
> ?
>
> As with CLANG35/38, the GCCx names have become rather obsolete, so I'd
> prefer to have a set of more generic names, and a sliding window of
> supported versions that can be documented in tools_def.template (and
> updated at times)
Agreed. And *if* we find a need in the future to add a new archived
range, we can add that then.
/
Leif
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#102116): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/102116
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/97923603/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe:
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/9847357/21656/1706620634/xyzzy
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
