On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 13:28, Leif Lindholm <quic_llind...@quicinc.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 09:39:56 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > - Remove GCC48 and GCC49. > > > > > > GCC49 is one GCC tool chain without LTO enable option. GCC5 is another > > > GCC tool chain with LTO enable option. > > > > > > They have the different usage. I suggest to keep GCC49 and GCC5 both, and > > > also keep their name as is. > > > > > > > Could we perhaps do > > > > GCC49 -> GCC > > GCC5 -> GCCLTO > > Might I suggest the inverse? > > GCC49 -> GCCNOLTO > GCC5 -> GCC > > I feel disabling LTO should be seen as the nonstandard approach. >
That works for me as well. > Regardless, we (including me) *should* have changed those names as > soon as we realised we didn't need a GCC51, and the misleading naming > still frequently causes confusion. So I don't think keeping the > current names should be considered an option. > Agreed. > > ? > > > > As with CLANG35/38, the GCCx names have become rather obsolete, so I'd > > prefer to have a set of more generic names, and a sliding window of > > supported versions that can be documented in tools_def.template (and > > updated at times) > > Agreed. And *if* we find a need in the future to add a new archived > range, we can add that then. > Of course. But with the stable tags, I doubt whether this will be necessary. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#102117): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/102117 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/97923603/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
