On 24 August 2015 at 19:20, Bill Paul <wp...@windriver.com> wrote:
> Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel had to
> walk into mine at 10:06:10 on Monday 24 August 2015 and say:
>
>> On 24 August 2015 at 19:02, Bill Paul <wp...@windriver.com> wrote:
>> > Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel
>> > had to
>> >
>> > walk into mine at 09:54:08 on Monday 24 August 2015 and say:
[...]
>> >> Jordan suggested to drop UNIXGCC as well, and introduce MINGW instead
>> >> iff we want the MinGW PE/COFF GCC, and I think we do, if only so that
>> >> we have a LLP64 environment for X64 available to those without the
>> >> possibility or the desire to run a MS toolchains under Windows.
>> >
>> > People should be able to build a known-good crossbuild toolchain. This is
>> > the simplest way to provide that option.
>>
>> Meh. The primary audience of this feature are people building UEFI for
>> X64 on X64, in which case the GCC4x options are arguably simpler. But
>> apparently we agree that we should keep it /and/ support it.
>>
>> > By the way, do you think I can get you to update the mingw-gcc-build.py
>> > script while you're at it? :)
>>
>> I proposed some updates here
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bios.edk2.devel/1297
>> (with you on cc). Care to ack those?
>
> Is there a particular reason why you chose to use binutils from www.kernel.org
> rather than from ftpmirror.gnu.org (other than "that's what it was doing
> before")?

Nope, that was it :-)

In fact, I vaguely remember noticing the kernel.org URL and thinking
"hmm that's odd" but for some reason, it did not provoke any action on
my part

> In my testing I used binutins 2.25 from gnu.org, and it worked ok. I
> thought it made more sense to get both packages from the same place.
>
>     source_files_common = {
>         'binutils': {
>             'url': 'http://ftpmirror.gnu.org/binutils/' + \
>                    'binutils-$version.tar.bz2',
>             'version': '2.25',
>             'md5': 'd9f3303f802a5b6b0bb73a335ab89d66',
>             },
>         }
>

Yes, 2.25 would be even better. In fact, it might make sense to wait
for 2.26 to appear, since it adds support for --gc-sections (see the
other part of this thread) which brings performance of mingw in line
with ELF based GCC regarding code size.
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to