From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBD04211A2D85 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 18:49:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA56792BA; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 02:49:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-123-131.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.123.131]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1823B5D738; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 02:49:03 +0000 (UTC) From: Laszlo Ersek To: edk2-devel-01 Cc: Bob Feng , Liming Gao , Yonghong Zhu Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 03:48:12 +0100 Message-Id: <20190103024816.9236-23-lersek@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20190103024816.9236-1-lersek@redhat.com> References: <20190103024816.9236-1-lersek@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Thu, 03 Jan 2019 02:49:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PATCH 22/26] BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove comment about GCC44 + LzmaF86Compress X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 02:49:06 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "tools_def.template" currently suggests, in the documentation of the LzmaF86Compress utility, that said tool is generally unhelpful on binaries built with the GCC44 toolchain, relative to LzmaCompress. This statement doesn't apply to the GCC48 toolchain. I compressed 126 NOOPT_GCC48/IA32 unique EFI modules (built with gcc-4.8.5, as part of OVMF) with both LzmaCompress and LzmaF86Compress. I repeated the same for 117 NOOPT_GCC48/X64 unique EFI modules. On average, the LzmaF86Compress output size was 92.4% of the LzmaCompress output size in the IA32 case (best relative compression: 86.01%, poorest relative compression: 97.47% -- still a win). In the X64 case, the LzmaF86Compress output size was 92.95% of the LzmaCompress output size, on avarege (best relative compression: 87.69%, poorest relative compression: 97.65% -- again, still a win). Given the consistent improvement from LzmaCompress to LzmaF86Compress, remove the statement (rather than updating it to GCC48). Cc: Bob Feng Cc: Liming Gao Cc: Yonghong Zhu Ref: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1377 Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek --- BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template index d1324d56a1a4..5afbb4ff2743 100755 --- a/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template +++ b/BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template @@ -6588,7 +6588,6 @@ RELEASE_RVCTCYGWIN_ARM_CC_FLAGS = "$(CCPATH_FLAG)" $(ARCHCC_FLAGS) $(PLATFORM_F ################## # LzmaF86Compress tool definitions with converter for x86 code. # It can improve the compression ratio if the input file is IA32 or X64 PE image. -# Notes: If X64 PE image is built based on GCC44, it may not get the better compression. ################## *_*_*_LZMAF86_PATH = LzmaF86Compress *_*_*_LZMAF86_GUID = D42AE6BD-1352-4bfb-909A-CA72A6EAE889 -- 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201