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
>>
>>
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
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
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
On 19 August 2015 at 00:27, Laszlo Ersek ler...@redhat.com 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 ler...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/18/15 22:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 18/08/2015 08:52, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 19 August 2015 at 09:53, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 22:29, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 22:03, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 19:35, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org
On 18 August 2015 at 22:29, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 22:03, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 19:35, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 17:52 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 18 August
On 17 August 2015 at 21:16, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from dw...@infradead.org by
twosheds.infradead.org
See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
On 2015-08-17 11:25:41, David Woodhouse wrote:
On 17 August 2015 at 20:53, Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com wrote:
On 2015-08-17 11:25:56, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 17 August 2015 at 20:22, Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com wrote:
Can't you use an elf-based GCC4.9 with the GCC49 toolchain instead?
I'm not sure it makes
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
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 I ask about
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, Larry looks at
On 18 August 2015 at 22:03, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 19:35, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 17:52 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 18 August 2015 at 17:19, Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com wrote:
Last time I
On 18 August 2015 at 17:19, Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com wrote:
On 2015-08-18 03:57:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 17 August 2015 at 20:53, Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com wrote:
On 2015-08-17 11:25:56, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
MinGW generates PE/COFF not ELF, so much of the
On 2015-08-18 03:57:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 17 August 2015 at 20:53, Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com 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
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
On 17 August 2015 at 19:53, Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com 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
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,
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 to see
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 unused
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 based. Did
...@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 series aims to refactor the toolchains definitions for
]UNIXGCC, GCC44, GCC45, GCC46, GCC47
...@linaro.org; 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 series aims
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 11:00:23
On 2015-08-17 11:25:56, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 17 August 2015 at 20:22, Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com 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
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 toolchain to
On 17 August 2015 at 20:22, Jordan Justen jordan.l.jus...@intel.com 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,
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
of
See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html
X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from dw...@infradead.org 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
30 matches
Mail list logo