On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 03:50:33PM -0600, Rebecca Cran wrote: > On 4/2/23 12:38 PM, Pedro Falcato wrote: > > As expressed off-list on UEFI talkbox, I like GCCNOLTO, but I would > > rather keep GCC5 as GCC5, for the next future iteration of "lets bump > > a new toolchain because we need feature X". > > Given we've gone from GCC 5 through 12 with no new toolchains, I'd prefer to > just have GCC. > > > This is unsurprising, plenty of NOLTO build breakage. Since no one > > seems to use this, could we think about axing this or? > > > > Just seems silly to have an extra toolchain (with extra cognitive > > overhead for anyone looking at tools_def) for s/-flto//g > > Since Liming wants to keep it, let's make all the other changes (deleting VS > 2008-2013, CLANG35, CLANG38 etc.) and keep GCCNOLTO and GCC for now. If > nobody fixes the problems with GCCNOLTO, maybe we can revisit dropping it in > a few months?
I'm wondering what the point in keeping a known-broken toolchain though. It is apparently unused when nobody noticed the breakage ... take care, Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#102390): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/102390 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/97919856/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
