On 13 August 2015 at 08:27, Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 12 August 2015 at 23:48, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org 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
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
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.
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 dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 13:25 -0500, Scott Duplichan wrote:
A while back I
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
On 13 August 2015 at 21:14, David Woodhouse 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 limitations. From a 2014 email
to this list:
1) Image is
' yingke.d@intel.com; 'Gao,
Liming' liming@intel.com
]Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC PATCH 0/4] unify GCC command line options
]
]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
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
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 ard.biesheu...@linaro.org
]Subject: [edk2] [RFC PATCH 0/4] unify GCC command line options
]
]This
, 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 ard.biesheu...@linaro.org
Ard:
This patch introduces GCC4X_ for common GCC option. It may be common for
GCC5, GCC6... So, how about use GCC_ prefix for all GCC common option?
Thanks
Liming
-Original Message-
From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Ard
Biesheuvel
Sent: Friday,
On 10 August 2015 at 10:00, Gao, Liming liming@intel.com wrote:
Ard:
This patch introduces GCC4X_ for common GCC option. It may be common for
GCC5, GCC6... So, how about use GCC_ prefix for all GCC common option?
Yes, I agree that would be better. I will change it.
Thanks,
Ard.
12 matches
Mail list logo
