On 2016-07-26 00:50:55, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 26 July 2016 at 09:40, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 2016-07-26 00:19:20, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 25 July 2016 at 22:56, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > I think you should make the build_rule changes in one patch, and the > >> > tools_def changes in the second. GCCLD, in this patch, will not work > >> > for using GCC as the linker. > >> > > >> > >> Not sure I understand what you mean. After his patch, GCC and GCCLD > >> are 100% equivalent, and any toolchains could use either and get the > >> exact same result, The gcc vs ld binary changes are in the next > >> patch(es) > > > > I meant that I don't think we need to make GCCLD equivalent at first. > > > > Instead, I suggest we add GCCLD with the -Wl changes, but don't set > > any toolchain to use it. > > > > Then we update the tools_def in a separate patch to make some > > toolchains use GCCLD, and at the same time change their linker flags > > to add -Wl. > > > > Basically, pull the build_rule changes into this patch from the next > > patch, and push the tools_def changes from this patch into the next > > patch. > > > > GCCLD will mean 'use ld as linker' not 'use gcc as linker', and is > introduced in this patch so the legacy GCC toolchains don't need to be > updated. So the tools_def changes are appropriate here, they introduce > GCCLD and move the legacy toolchains over to use it so that subsequent > changes to the original GCC build rule family will not affect them.
Ah... I had suggested the name GCCLD to mean GCC being used as the linker. Later, I thought (but didn't mention) that maybe GCCLINK would be a better name for what I meant. I see how GCCLD could be interpreted as GCC with LD as the linker, so I withdraw the suggestion. -Jordan _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
