Hi, > > However, those issues might have been fixed and it’s not impossible > > Vitaly will give it another try eventually. In any case, I think our > > downstream variant of XCODE5 doesn’t require any level of special > > care, so it doesn’t really matter to us. > > > > (Another thing to consider is despite the bugs are fixed, mtoc has a > > much higher overall code quality and more safety checks than GenFw, > > which is used for CLANGDWARF.) > > > > The upstream toolchain has no future in my opinion, as mtoc has been > > deprecated and already failed to compile certain things (like it > > lacked Standalone MM types). The reason it still “worked” was > > because homebrew silently shipped a variant with a subset of our > > ocmtoc patches. So as I see it, taking our changes or dropping it > > entirely are the only sane options, even regardless of this > > particular issue you’re trying to fix. Personally, I have no > > preference. > > I think both GenFw and mtoc are horrible hacks that should be phased > out once we can - with good cross-architecture Clang support for > native PE binaries, I'd hope macOS could move to CLANGPDB for all > targets.
What is the difference between CLANGPDB and CLANGDWARF? Just the debug info format? What is the support status? Is CLANGDWARF expected to build edk2 on all platforms? Including cross-builds? Or will that work only after Rebecca's toolchain fix/cleanup series being merged? Should we eventually switch from gcc to clang on linux too? take care, Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#102295): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/102295 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/97960758/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
