On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 20:03, Rebecca Cran <rebe...@bsdio.com> wrote: > > > On 4/4/23 11:57 AM, Pedro Falcato wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 6:52 PM Kinney, Michael D > > <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> wrote: > >> I see value in adding a new name. > >> > >> I see no value in a non-backwards compatible change to delete/rename a > >> fully supported one. > > As Leif said, you reduce all sorts of possible confusion. > > > > VS2013 builds only for Visual Studio 2013 tools, VS2017 does the same > > for 2017, GCC5 meanwhile builds on anything from (probably GCC 4.x, > > since LTO, 2011) to GCC 13 (to be released soon, 2023). > > > > Surely downstreams can adapt to *this one cosmetic change* that > > changes no behavior. > > Nope, GCC5 currently only builds on GCC _6_ and newer, since we don't > specify -std=c++11. Which makes this discussion even more ridiculous IMO. > >
I agree with Mike here. 'GCC' does not exist today, so dropping GCC5 at the same time makes this a flag day change, which is never great. Imagine having to bisect through that, and having to figure out at each step whether to use GCC5 or GCC. It's much better to have GCC5 and GCC co-exist for a little while, even if the former only exists as an alias that is documented as being obsolete and scheduled for removal. -- Ard. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#102531): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/102531 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/98051589/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
