Liming, Can you please provide a few more details on the failure.
For the UnitTestFrameworkPkg patch set, I had to add the following to get host based unit test applications to build and run. I was seeing link failures between FW libs and host libs when building the POSIX host application. [BuildOptions] GCC:*_*_*_CC_FLAGS = -fno-pie I think with the proposed change below, I could remove this. Do you agree? Thanks, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On > Behalf Of Liming Gao > Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 4:52 AM > To: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>; > devel@edk2.groups.io > Cc: Feng, Bob C <bob.c.f...@intel.com>; Ard Biesheuvel > <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>; Gao, Liming > <liming....@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch] BaseTools > tools_def.template: Add back -fno-pie option in GCC49 > tool chain > > Laszlo: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:02 PM > > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming > <liming....@intel.com> > > Cc: Feng, Bob C <bob.c.f...@intel.com>; Ard > Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch] BaseTools > tools_def.template: Add back -fno-pie option in GCC49 > tool chain > > > > (+Ard) > > > > On 02/04/20 05:54, Liming Gao wrote: > > > BZ: > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2502 > > > This option is required to make GCC49 tool chain > work with the high > > > version GCC compiler. > > > > > > Cc: Bob Feng <bob.c.f...@intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Liming Gao <liming....@intel.com> > > > --- > > > BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template > b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template > > > index feee2bbf16..d02424ae44 100755 > > > --- a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template > > > +++ b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template > > > @@ -1974,7 +1974,7 @@ DEFINE > GCC48_ARM_ASLDLINK_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC_ARM_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) -Wl,--oformat > > > DEFINE GCC48_AARCH64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC_AARCH64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) > > > DEFINE GCC48_ASLCC_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC_ASLCC_FLAGS) > > > > > > -DEFINE GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) > > > +DEFINE GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC48_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -fno-pic -fno-pie > > > DEFINE GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC48_X64_CC_FLAGS) > > > DEFINE GCC49_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON = -nostdlib - > Wl,-n,-q,--gc-sections -z common-page-size=0x40 > > > DEFINE GCC49_IA32_X64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC49_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON) -Wl,-- > defsym=PECOFF_HEADER_SIZE=0 > > DEF(GCC_DLINK2_FLAGS_COMMON) -Wl,-- > entry,ReferenceAcpiTable -u ReferenceAcpiTable > > > @@ -1997,7 +1997,7 @@ DEFINE > GCC49_ARM_ASLDLINK_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC48_ARM_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) > > > DEFINE GCC49_AARCH64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC48_AARCH64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) > > > DEFINE GCC49_ASLCC_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC48_ASLCC_FLAGS) > > > > > > -DEFINE GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) -fno-pic -fno-pie > > > +DEFINE GCC5_IA32_CC_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC49_IA32_CC_FLAGS) > > > DEFINE GCC5_X64_CC_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC49_X64_CC_FLAGS) > > > DEFINE GCC5_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON = > DEF(GCC49_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON) > > > DEFINE GCC5_IA32_X64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS = > DEF(GCC49_IA32_X64_ASLDLINK_FLAGS) > > > > > > > - What has changed relative to commit 11d0cd23dd1b > ("BaseTools/tools_def > > IA32: drop -no-pie linker option for GCC49", 2018-06- > 18)? > > > > - Also, if we are reverting one half of 11d0cd23dd1b > (the compiler > > flags), shouldn't we then revert the other half too > (the linker flags)? > > Yes. Half change is revert. CC_FLAGS is added back. > DLINK flag is not, > because GCC4.9 doesn't know the link option -no-pie. > But, GCC 4.9 accepts the CC option -fno-pie. > I verify this change. CC flags -fno-pie can resolve the > build failure with GCC7.4. I also see -fno-pie option > Is in GCC ARM and AARCH64 arch. So, I think this change > is enough. > > > > > - The commit message says, "work with the high > version GCC compiler". > > What does that mean? If it is 4.9.x, with x>2, then I > agree the patch is > > justified (because commit 11d0cd23dd1b was apparently > made for 4.9.2). > > But if the phrase stands for gcc8 or so (just an > example), then I don't > > think the patch is a good idea; users of gcc8 can > just specify the GCC5 > > toolchain. > > > > Ah, indeed, I need only look at TianoCore#2502: > > > > "GCC49 tool chain meets with the build failure when > GCC7.4 compiler". > > > > So I think this approach is wrong. Unless there is a > new gcc-4.9.x > > release, i.e., after gcc-4.9.2, I think we still need > commit > > 11d0cd23dd1b in place. And, please use GCC5 for gcc- > 7.4 -- is there a > > problem with that? > > By design, GCC49 can work with the high version GCC > compiler like GCC5. > GCC49 is the tool chain without LTO enable. GCC5 is the > tool chain with LTO. > So, they are for two different GCC setting. They should > both support > high version GCC compiler. GCC49 supported GCC compiler > version is from GCC 4.9. > GCC5 supported GCC compiler version is from GCC 5.0. I > know GCC49 or GCC5 tool chain > name brings a little confuse. I will add more detail > info in tools_def.txt for them. > > Thanks > Liming > > > > Thanks > > Laszlo > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#53730): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/53730 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/70966421/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
