On 2 August 2016 at 17:01, Leif Lindholm <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:39:30PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> In order to be able to share the compiler flags with the linker (which >> is required for LTO since it involves the linker doing code generation >> based on the LTO bytecode), move the -c GCC argument to the build rules, >> and drop it from the GCC CC_FLAGS definitions in tools_def. >> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]> >> --- >> BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template | 16 +++++++++------- >> BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template | 10 +++++----- >> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template >> b/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template >> index 9adf3918e42e..7d9f8ca075c2 100644 >> --- a/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template >> +++ b/BaseTools/Conf/build_rule.template >> @@ -130,7 +130,10 @@ >> <Command.MSFT, Command.INTEL> >> "$(CC)" /Fo${dst} $(CC_FLAGS) $(INC) ${src} >> >> - <Command.GCC, Command.GCCLD, Command.RVCT> >> + <Command.GCC, Command.GCCLD> >> + "$(CC)" $(CC_FLAGS) -c -o ${dst} $(INC) ${src} >> + >> + <Command.RVCT> > > Apart from the slightly larger patch set, is there any reason not to > split out the RVCT handling here and fix up tools_def.template for it > too? >
In what sense do we need to fix up tools_def for RVCT? _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
