On 13 August 2015 at 08:27, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 12 August 2015 at 23:48, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 09:08 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> Is there any reason these are kept out of sync? Are UNIXGCC and CYGGCC
>>> known to be widely used in some particular environment? If not, I
>>> think it makes sense to merge them, i.e., retain the UNIXGCC and
>>> CYGGCC toolchain names, but make them use the same options for IA32
>>> and X64 as GCC44 - GCC49 do. (UNIXGCC and CYGGCC are unversioned, so
>>> it is unclear which GCC version they expect anyway)
>>
>> That would seem to make sense.
>>
>> FWIW it doesn't actually build with MinGW (which is what UNIXGCC is)
>> these days anyway. You might make it work with -fstack-check=specific:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67169
>>
>
> OK noted
>
> However, building with i686-w64-mingw32-gcc produces lots of
> -Wint-to-pointer-cast issues, so I am not sure how this is supposed to
> work.
> Is this the wrong mingw version to use? I guess UINTN is typedef'ed to
> 'unsigned long long' on LLP64, otherwise the assumption that
> sizeof(UINTN) == sizeof(VOID*) that is made throughout the EDK2 code
> base obviously does not hold.
>

OK, never mind. I should be using x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc to build for X64
Sorry for the noise
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to