On 8/31/20 6:27 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 08/31/20 18:18, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
Obviously the following form would be preferred:
scl enable example -- less --version
Because this form would not require quoting, just prefixing.
I need to slow down when reading manual pages. Now that I've a
On 08/31/20 18:18, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Obviously the following form would be preferred:
>
> scl enable example -- less --version
>
> Because this form would not require quoting, just prefixing.
I need to slow down when reading manual pages. Now that I've actually
*tried* the above, it works
On 08/31/20 16:37, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Not sure how Leif feels about this, but i wouldn't mind retaining
> GCC48 support only for IA32/X64.
I've never considered GCC48 usable for ARM/AARCH64. I already use GCC48
for IA32/X64 only.
Anyway... it looks like I am able to consume gcc-9
("devtools
On 8/31/20 4:03 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 08/31/20 15:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
mainline EDK2 is arguably a development tree
I agree.
not a stable production tree for ~5 year old firmware builds
I agree with that too.
But I don't think GCC48 is "holding back" edk2. I don't know of a
fir
On 08/31/20 15:22, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> mainline EDK2 is arguably a development tree
I agree.
> not a stable production tree for ~5 year old firmware builds
I agree with that too.
But I don't think GCC48 is "holding back" edk2. I don't know of a
firmware feature that suffers because I'd lik
t; ; nd
> 主题: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags
>
> On 8/28/20 9:15 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 18:56:45 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >>>> Leif, please comment!
> >>>
> >>> I did propose rever
On 8/28/20 9:15 PM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 18:56:45 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
Leif, please comment!
I did propose reverting it. But I asked for Ard's feedback on the
reason for why we had the break in the flags-chain, in case he
remembered (and he was on holiday at the t
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 18:56:45 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> Leif, please comment!
> >
> > I did propose reverting it. But I asked for Ard's feedback on the
> > reason for why we had the break in the flags-chain, in case he
> > remembered (and he was on holiday at the time).
> >
> > Basically
On 08/27/20 17:25, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 16:55:11 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 08/27/20 10:32, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>>> Hello Laszlo,
>>> I thought Leif wanted to revert this modification. Should I apply
>> your requested changes, or should this patch be reverted?
>>
>
; To: Pierre Gondois
> > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; bob.c.f...@intel.com; liming@intel.com; Tomas
> > Pilar ; nd ; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia
> > address) ; Ard Biesheuvel
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags
> >
> > On 07/22
Message-
> From: Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 5:43 PM
> To: Pierre Gondois
> Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; bob.c.f...@intel.com; liming@intel.com; Tomas
> Pilar ; nd ; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)
> ; Ard Biesheuvel
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2
; bob.c.f...@intel.com; liming@intel.com; Tomas
Pilar ; nd ; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)
; Ard Biesheuvel
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags
On 07/22/20 13:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On 07/07/20 10:35, PierreGondois wrote:
>> From:
On 07/22/20 13:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On 07/07/20 10:35, PierreGondois wrote:
>> From: Pierre Gondois
>>
>> GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS has no dependency on GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS.
>> By definition, there should be such dependency.
>>
>> The outcomes of this patch is that GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS an
And now I spotted this one.
Why are we going back and changing build flags for toolchain profiles
that are kept around for legacy use only? GCC 4.8 was released in
2013.
While I agree it *semantically* makes sense for GCC*_CC_FLAGS to
inherit GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS, I am pretty sure the discrepancy was
On 07/22/20 13:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> On 07/07/20 10:35, PierreGondois wrote:
>> From: Pierre Gondois
>>
>> GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS has no dependency on GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS.
>> By definition, there should be such dependency.
>>
>> The outcomes of this patch is that GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS an
Hi Pierre,
On 07/07/20 10:35, PierreGondois wrote:
> From: Pierre Gondois
>
> GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS has no dependency on GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS.
> By definition, there should be such dependency.
>
> The outcomes of this patch is that GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS and
> other dependent configurations will inherit f
Reviewed-by: Bob Feng
-Original Message-
From: PierreGondois
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 4:35 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Pierre Gondois ; Feng, Bob C
; Gao, Liming ;
tomas.pi...@arm.com; n...@arm.com
Subject: [PATCH V2 2/2] BaseTools: Factorize GCC flags
From: Pierre Gondois
GC
From: Pierre Gondois
GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS has no dependency on GCC_ALL_CC_FLAGS.
By definition, there should be such dependency.
The outcomes of this patch is that GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS and
other dependent configurations will inherit from the
additional "-Os" flag.
The "-Os" flag optimizes a build in
18 matches
Mail list logo
