On 8 October 2015 at 21:56, Bill Paul wrote:
> Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Bill Paul had to walk
> into mine at 10:30:26 on Monday 24 August 2015 and say:
>
>> Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel had
>> to
>>
>> walk into mine at 10:
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Bill Paul had to walk
into mine at 10:30:26 on Monday 24 August 2015 and say:
> Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel had
> to
>
> walk into mine at 10:22:59 on Monday 24 August 2015 and say:
> > On 24 Aug
On 19 August 2015 at 00:27, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 08/18/15 22:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18/08/2015 08:52, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
Personally, I would not mind deprecating GCC44, but the biggest
question I would have is what toolchains do the latest UDK releases
claim to
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:
> On 19 August 2015 at 00:27, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > On 08/18/15 22:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 18/08/2015 08:52, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Persona
On 24 August 2015 at 19:02, Bill Paul 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:
>
>> On 19 August 2015 at 00:27, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> > On 08/18/15 22:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> >> On 1
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel had to
walk into mine at 10:22:59 on Monday 24 August 2015 and say:
> On 24 August 2015 at 19:20, Bill Paul wrote:
> > Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel
> > had to
> >
> > walk into min
On 24 August 2015 at 19:20, Bill Paul 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 wrote:
>> > Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the wor
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 wrote:
> > Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel
> > had to
> >
> > walk into min
On 19 August 2015 at 09:53, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 18 August 2015 at 22:29, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 18 August 2015 at 22:03, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 18 August 2015 at 19:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 17:52 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 18 August 2015
On 18 August 2015 at 22:29, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 18 August 2015 at 22:03, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 18 August 2015 at 19:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 17:52 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 17:19, Jordan Justen
wrote:
> Last time I
On 08/18/15 22:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 18/08/2015 08:52, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> Personally, I would not mind deprecating GCC44, but the biggest
>>> question I would have is what toolchains do the latest UDK releases
>>> claim to support.
>>>
>>> We also have the issue that every time
On 18/08/2015 08:52, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Personally, I would not mind deprecating GCC44, but the biggest
> > question I would have is what toolchains do the latest UDK releases
> > claim to support.
> >
> > We also have the issue that every time I ask about deprecating a
> > toolchain, Larr
On 18 August 2015 at 22:03, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 18 August 2015 at 19:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 17:52 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 18 August 2015 at 17:19, Jordan Justen wrote:
>>> > Last time I checked, GCC44 ~ GCC49 all produced images roughly in the
>>>
On 18 August 2015 at 19:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 17:52 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 18 August 2015 at 17:19, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> > Last time I checked, GCC44 ~ GCC49 all produced images roughly in the
>> > same ball park size-wise. UNIXGCC produced much larger
On 8/18/2015 10:26 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
Ultimately, it would be useful to have a subset of
platforms/toolchains that need to pass before a patch is accepted, but
I am aware that we are still far away from anything like that.
For internal use, I have set up some infrastructure that we can us
On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 17:52 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 18 August 2015 at 17:19, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > Last time I checked, GCC44 ~ GCC49 all produced images roughly in the
> > same ball park size-wise. UNIXGCC produced much larger images because
> > it could not strip unused functions/da
On 18 August 2015 at 18:06, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On 2015-08-18 04:01:36, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 17 August 2015 at 21:16, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> >> On 2015-08-17 11:25:41, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 11:22 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> >>> > Can't you use an elf-
On 2015-08-18 04:01:36, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 17 August 2015 at 21:16, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >> On 2015-08-17 11:25:41, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 11:22 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
> >>> > Can't you use an elf-based GCC4.9 with the GCC49 toolchain instead?
> >>>
> >
On 18 August 2015 at 17:19, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On 2015-08-18 03:57:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 17 August 2015 at 20:53, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> > On 2015-08-17 11:25:56, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >> MinGW generates PE/COFF not ELF, so much of the linker command line is
>> >> different, and
On 2015-08-18 03:57:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 17 August 2015 at 20:53, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > On 2015-08-17 11:25:56, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> MinGW generates PE/COFF not ELF, so much of the linker command line is
> >> different, and it really deserves a toolchain of its own
> >
> > Why d
On 17 August 2015 at 21:16, David Woodhouse wrote:
> See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by
> twosheds.infradead.org
> See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
>
>
>> On 2015-08-17 11:25:41, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 11:22 -
On 17 August 2015 at 20:53, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On 2015-08-17 11:25:56, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 17 August 2015 at 20:22, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> > Can't you use an elf-based GCC4.9 with the GCC49 toolchain instead?
>> >
>> > I'm not sure it makes sense to 'upgrade' the UNIXGCC toolchain to
See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by
twosheds.infradead.org
See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
> On 2015-08-17 11:25:41, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 11:22 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> > Can't you use an elf-based GCC4.
On 2015-08-17 11:25:41, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 11:22 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > Can't you use an elf-based GCC4.9 with the GCC49 toolchain instead?
>
> Not for testing LLP64, no.
How/who is this helping?
> > I'm not sure it makes sense to 'upgrade' the UNIXGCC toolch
gt; ; jordan.l.jus...@intel.com;
> ]liming@intel.com; dw...@infradead.org
> ]Subject: [edk2] [PATCH v2 00/16] unify GCC command line options
> ]
> ]This got a bit out of hand after I noticed the ELFGCC and UNIXGCC
> ]toolchains that needed some tlc as well.
> ]
> ]Anyway, this
On 2015-08-17 11:25:56, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 17 August 2015 at 20:22, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > Can't you use an elf-based GCC4.9 with the GCC49 toolchain instead?
> >
> > I'm not sure it makes sense to 'upgrade' the UNIXGCC toolchain to be
> > based on GCC 4.9 rather than 4.3. I think GCC 4.
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Jordan Justen had to
walk into mine at 11:22:15 on Monday 17 August 2015 and say:
> On 2015-08-17 11:10:57, Bill Paul wrote:
> > Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, David Woodhouse
> > had
> >
> > to walk into mine at
: [edk2] [PATCH v2 00/16] unify GCC command line options
]
]This got a bit out of hand after I noticed the ELFGCC and UNIXGCC
]toolchains that needed some tlc as well.
]
]Anyway, this series aims to refactor the toolchains definitions for
]UNIXGCC, GCC44, GCC45, GCC46, GCC47, GCC48, GCC49, CLANG35, ELFGCC
On 17 August 2015 at 20:22, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On 2015-08-17 11:10:57, Bill Paul wrote:
>> Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, David Woodhouse had
>> to walk into mine at 11:00:23 on Monday 17 August 2015 and say:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 10:53 -0700, Jordan Justen wr
On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 11:22 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
> Can't you use an elf-based GCC4.9 with the GCC49 toolchain instead?
Not for testing LLP64, no.
> I'm not sure it makes sense to 'upgrade' the UNIXGCC toolchain to be
> based on GCC 4.9 rather than 4.3. I think GCC 4.3 was implicitly part
>
On 2015-08-17 11:10:57, Bill Paul wrote:
> Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, David Woodhouse had
> to walk into mine at 11:00:23 on Monday 17 August 2015 and say:
>
> > On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 10:53 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > > UNIXGCC and CYGGCC are GCC 4.3 & mingw base
On 17 August 2015 at 19:53, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On 2015-08-17 07:24:57, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> This got a bit out of hand after I noticed the ELFGCC and UNIXGCC
>> toolchains that needed some tlc as well.
>>
>> Anyway, this series aims to refactor the toolchains definitions for
>> UNIXGCC, GC
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, David Woodhouse had
to walk into mine at 11:00:23 on Monday 17 August 2015 and say:
> On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 10:53 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > UNIXGCC and CYGGCC are GCC 4.3 & mingw based. Did this get tested?
> >
> > I think ELFGCC is
On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 10:53 -0700, Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> UNIXGCC and CYGGCC are GCC 4.3 & mingw based. Did this get tested?
>
> I think ELFGCC is unused at this point. (And has been since UnixPkg
> was deprecated.)
>
> I think we should deprecate all three of these toolchains. I would
> like
On 2015-08-17 07:24:57, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This got a bit out of hand after I noticed the ELFGCC and UNIXGCC
> toolchains that needed some tlc as well.
>
> Anyway, this series aims to refactor the toolchains definitions for
> UNIXGCC, GCC44, GCC45, GCC46, GCC47, GCC48, GCC49, CLANG35, ELFGCC,
This got a bit out of hand after I noticed the ELFGCC and UNIXGCC
toolchains that needed some tlc as well.
Anyway, this series aims to refactor the toolchains definitions for
UNIXGCC, GCC44, GCC45, GCC46, GCC47, GCC48, GCC49, CLANG35, ELFGCC,
CYGGCC and CYGGCCxASL so that they share as much of the
36 matches
Mail list logo
