On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 13:55:19 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> I agree that we should either support a toolchain (and have CI
> coverage for it) or not, in which case we should just remove it.
>
> However, the issues being reported are specific to SEV-SNP and TDX,
> which implies that they are specific to OVMF. And actually, the
> reported issue at
>
> OvmfPkg/Library/CcExitLib/CcExitVcHandler.c:1358:10:
> error: ‘XCr0’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>
> seems to be a valid concern.
>
> So the point I am making is that OVMF gets a lot of attention in the
> open source project, but in the wider ecosystem, there are many
> platforms relying on this code base that don't incorporate the Coco
> components at all, so whether OVMF currently builds with GCC49 is not
> 100% relevant.
>
> So I am leaning towards retaining GCC49 as GCCNOLTO, and getting some
> coverage for it in CI, as we occasionally get useful diagnostics out
> of it. But I am not going to fight any battles over it - I rarely use
> it myself, and so I will not miss it when it's gone.
I agree with all aspects of this statement. I would *prefer* to keep
it as a canary - with CI.
/
Leif
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#102395): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/102395
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/97919856/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe:
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/9847357/21656/1706620634/xyzzy
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
