Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel had to
walk into mine at 00:55:26 on Friday 14 August 2015 and say:
> On 13 August 2015 at 21:57, Bill Paul wrote:
> > Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel
> > had to
> >
> > walk into min
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 23:54 -0500, Scott Duplichan wrote:
> David Woodhouse [mailto:dw...@infradead.org] wrote:
> ]On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 13:25 -0500, Scott Duplichan wrote:
> ]> A while back I experimented with mingw as a Windows hosted gcc tool
> ]> chain for EDK2. It is usable, but has limitation
On 13 August 2015 at 21:57, Bill Paul wrote:
> Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel had to
> walk into mine at 12:25:31 on Thursday 13 August 2015 and say:
>
>> On 13 August 2015 at 21:14, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 13:25 -0500, Scott Dupl
David Woodhouse [mailto:dw...@infradead.org] wrote:
]Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 02:15 PM
]To: Scott Duplichan ; 'Ard Biesheuvel'
]Cc: 'Justen, Jordan L' ; 'edk2-devel@lists.01.org'
; 'Liu, ]Yingke D' ; 'Gao,
Liming'
]Subject: Re: [ed
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Ard Biesheuvel had to
walk into mine at 12:25:31 on Thursday 13 August 2015 and say:
> On 13 August 2015 at 21:14, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 13:25 -0500, Scott Duplichan wrote:
> >> A while back I experimented with m
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 21:25 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Another reason to unify the GCC compiler and linker flags: we do use
> -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections and --gc-sections, but only for
> GCC44 - GCC49, and these flags are not inherited by UNIXGCC et al
Ah, I didn't realise we did. Th
On 13 August 2015 at 21:14, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 13:25 -0500, Scott Duplichan wrote:
>> A while back I experimented with mingw as a Windows hosted gcc tool
>> chain for EDK2. It is usable, but has limitations. From a 2014 email
>> to this list:
>
>> 1) Image is big due to
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 13:25 -0500, Scott Duplichan wrote:
> A while back I experimented with mingw as a Windows hosted gcc tool
> chain for EDK2. It is usable, but has limitations. From a 2014 email
> to this list:
> 1) Image is big due to dead library code in final image.
> 2) Default calling con
Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheu...@linaro.org] wrote:
]Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 01:40 AM
]To: David Woodhouse
]Cc: Justen, Jordan L ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
; Liu, Yingke D ]; Gao, Liming
]Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC PATCH 0/4] unify GCC command line options
]
]On 13 August 2015 at 08
On 13 August 2015 at 08:27, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 12 August 2015 at 23:48, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 09:08 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> Is there any reason these are kept out of sync? Are UNIXGCC and CYGGCC
>>> known to be widely used in some particular environment?
On 12 August 2015 at 23:48, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 09:08 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> Is there any reason these are kept out of sync? Are UNIXGCC and CYGGCC
>> known to be widely used in some particular environment? If not, I
>> think it makes sense to merge them, i.e.,
On 8/12/15 11:47 PM, Gao, Liming wrote:
Add -std=gnu89 to the CC flags.
This is the default for gcc 4.x, so it doesn't change anything for those tool
chains (other than making the command line slightly longer). GCC5 however,
defaults to -std=gnu11. By adding -std=gnu89, gcc5 will behave
dan L; Liu, Yingke D
Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC PATCH 0/4] unify GCC command line options
Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheu...@linaro.org] wrote:
]Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 10:05 AM
]To: edk2-de...@ml01.01.org; jordan.l.jus...@intel.com; yingke.d@intel.com
]Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
]Subject: [edk2] [R
Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheu...@linaro.org] wrote:
]Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 10:05 AM
]To: edk2-de...@ml01.01.org; jordan.l.jus...@intel.com; yingke.d@intel.com
]Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
]Subject: [edk2] [RFC PATCH 0/4] unify GCC command line options
]
]This unifies all command line
On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 09:08 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Is there any reason these are kept out of sync? Are UNIXGCC and CYGGCC
> known to be widely used in some particular environment? If not, I
> think it makes sense to merge them, i.e., retain the UNIXGCC and
> CYGGCC toolchain names, but make
en, Jordan L; Liu, Yingke D
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
> Subject: [edk2] [RFC PATCH 0/4] unify GCC command line options
>
> This unifies all command line option defines in tools_def.txt, in order to
> reduce the maintenance burden.
>
> Note that this does not add or remove any GCC4x
; -Original Message-
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Ard
> Biesheuvel
> Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 11:05 PM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Justen, Jordan L; Liu, Yingke D
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
> Subject: [edk2] [RFC PATCH 0/4] unify
, August 7, 2015 11:05 PM
To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Justen, Jordan L; Liu, Yingke D
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
Subject: [edk2] [RFC PATCH 0/4] unify GCC command line options
This unifies all command line option defines in tools_def.txt, in order to
reduce the maintenance burden.
Note that this does not add
This unifies all command line option defines in tools_def.txt, in order
to reduce the maintenance burden.
Note that this does not add or remove any GCC4x toolchains, it just folds
the common DEFINEs into a single series of GCC4X defines.
Ard Biesheuvel (4):
BaseTools GCC: remove 4.9 specific li
19 matches
Mail list logo
