* NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) @ 2016-09-22 3:02 Bruce Cran 2016-09-22 3:40 ` Laszlo Ersek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Bruce Cran @ 2016-09-22 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: edk2-devel Would it be possible to either have a NOOPT build for OVMF added, or have the DEBUG build disable optimizations? Personally I'd expect debug builds in general to disable optimizations to allow easy source-level debugging, but it seems the decision has been made to keep optimizations enabled for EDK2 and have a NOOPT configuration for debugging? -- Bruce ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) 2016-09-22 3:02 NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) Bruce Cran @ 2016-09-22 3:40 ` Laszlo Ersek 2016-09-22 4:52 ` Gao, Liming 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Laszlo Ersek @ 2016-09-22 3:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Cran, edk2-devel; +Cc: Ard Biesheuvel On 09/22/16 05:02, Bruce Cran wrote: > Would it be possible to either have a NOOPT build for OVMF added, or > have the DEBUG build disable optimizations? Personally I'd expect > debug builds in general to disable optimizations to allow easy > source-level debugging, but it seems the decision has been made to keep > optimizations enabled for EDK2 and have a NOOPT configuration for > debugging? Yes, I seem to recall that DEBUG means optimizations enabled, but debug code (such as DEBUG(), ASSERT(), DEBUG_CODE(...), ASSERT_EFI_ERROR()) included. Indeed NOOPT seems to be what edk2 assigns generally to the build you'd like. A NOOPT build target for OVMF (and more generally for GCC toolchains I guess?) should be possible, likely even welcome, I believe. If only someone contributed such BaseTools patches. :) ('git grep -e NOOPT --and -e GCC -- BaseTools' returns no hits.) Thanks Laszlo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) 2016-09-22 3:40 ` Laszlo Ersek @ 2016-09-22 4:52 ` Gao, Liming 2016-09-23 2:43 ` Laszlo Ersek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Gao, Liming @ 2016-09-22 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Laszlo Ersek, Bruce Cran, edk2-devel@ml01.01.org; +Cc: Ard Biesheuvel Laszlo: Yes. GCC tool chain has no NOOPT setting in tools_def.txt. Could you help submit one bug in Bugzilla? Thanks Liming > -----Original Message----- > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of > Laszlo Ersek > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:41 AM > To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>; edk2-devel@ml01.01.org > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > Subject: Re: [edk2] NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations > disabled) > > On 09/22/16 05:02, Bruce Cran wrote: > > Would it be possible to either have a NOOPT build for OVMF added, or > > have the DEBUG build disable optimizations? Personally I'd expect > > debug builds in general to disable optimizations to allow easy > > source-level debugging, but it seems the decision has been made to keep > > optimizations enabled for EDK2 and have a NOOPT configuration for > > debugging? > > Yes, I seem to recall that DEBUG means optimizations enabled, but debug > code (such as DEBUG(), ASSERT(), DEBUG_CODE(...), ASSERT_EFI_ERROR()) > included. Indeed NOOPT seems to be what edk2 assigns generally to the > build you'd like. > > A NOOPT build target for OVMF (and more generally for GCC toolchains I > guess?) should be possible, likely even welcome, I believe. If only > someone contributed such BaseTools patches. :) > > ('git grep -e NOOPT --and -e GCC -- BaseTools' returns no hits.) > > Thanks > Laszlo > > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) 2016-09-22 4:52 ` Gao, Liming @ 2016-09-23 2:43 ` Laszlo Ersek 2016-09-23 2:44 ` Zhu, Yonghong 2016-09-23 2:44 ` Gao, Liming 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Laszlo Ersek @ 2016-09-23 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gao, Liming, Bruce Cran, edk2-devel@ml01.01.org Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Zhu, Yonghong On 09/22/16 06:52, Gao, Liming wrote: > Laszlo: > Yes. GCC tool chain has no NOOPT setting in tools_def.txt. Could you > help submit one bug in Bugzilla? I filed <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129>. Since all (open?) BaseTools BZs seem to be assigned to Yonghong at the moment, I followed suit here. If that's not okay, please modify the Assignee field accordingly. Thanks! Laszlo >> -----Original Message----- >> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of >> Laszlo Ersek >> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:41 AM >> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>; edk2-devel@ml01.01.org >> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> >> Subject: Re: [edk2] NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations >> disabled) >> >> On 09/22/16 05:02, Bruce Cran wrote: >>> Would it be possible to either have a NOOPT build for OVMF added, or >>> have the DEBUG build disable optimizations? Personally I'd expect >>> debug builds in general to disable optimizations to allow easy >>> source-level debugging, but it seems the decision has been made to keep >>> optimizations enabled for EDK2 and have a NOOPT configuration for >>> debugging? >> >> Yes, I seem to recall that DEBUG means optimizations enabled, but debug >> code (such as DEBUG(), ASSERT(), DEBUG_CODE(...), ASSERT_EFI_ERROR()) >> included. Indeed NOOPT seems to be what edk2 assigns generally to the >> build you'd like. >> >> A NOOPT build target for OVMF (and more generally for GCC toolchains I >> guess?) should be possible, likely even welcome, I believe. If only >> someone contributed such BaseTools patches. :) >> >> ('git grep -e NOOPT --and -e GCC -- BaseTools' returns no hits.) >> >> Thanks >> Laszlo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> edk2-devel mailing list >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) 2016-09-23 2:43 ` Laszlo Ersek @ 2016-09-23 2:44 ` Zhu, Yonghong 2016-09-23 2:44 ` Gao, Liming 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Zhu, Yonghong @ 2016-09-23 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Laszlo Ersek, Gao, Liming, Bruce Cran, edk2-devel@ml01.01.org Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Zhu, Yonghong Yes, I will follow up. Best Regards, Zhu Yonghong -----Original Message----- From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:44 AM To: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>; edk2-devel@ml01.01.org Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>; Zhu, Yonghong <yonghong.zhu@intel.com> Subject: Re: [edk2] NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) On 09/22/16 06:52, Gao, Liming wrote: > Laszlo: > Yes. GCC tool chain has no NOOPT setting in tools_def.txt. Could you > help submit one bug in Bugzilla? I filed <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129>. Since all (open?) BaseTools BZs seem to be assigned to Yonghong at the moment, I followed suit here. If that's not okay, please modify the Assignee field accordingly. Thanks! Laszlo >> -----Original Message----- >> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf >> Of Laszlo Ersek >> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:41 AM >> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>; edk2-devel@ml01.01.org >> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> >> Subject: Re: [edk2] NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations >> disabled) >> >> On 09/22/16 05:02, Bruce Cran wrote: >>> Would it be possible to either have a NOOPT build for OVMF added, or >>> have the DEBUG build disable optimizations? Personally I'd expect >>> debug builds in general to disable optimizations to allow easy >>> source-level debugging, but it seems the decision has been made to >>> keep optimizations enabled for EDK2 and have a NOOPT configuration >>> for debugging? >> >> Yes, I seem to recall that DEBUG means optimizations enabled, but >> debug code (such as DEBUG(), ASSERT(), DEBUG_CODE(...), >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR()) included. Indeed NOOPT seems to be what edk2 >> assigns generally to the build you'd like. >> >> A NOOPT build target for OVMF (and more generally for GCC toolchains >> I >> guess?) should be possible, likely even welcome, I believe. If only >> someone contributed such BaseTools patches. :) >> >> ('git grep -e NOOPT --and -e GCC -- BaseTools' returns no hits.) >> >> Thanks >> Laszlo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> edk2-devel mailing list >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) 2016-09-23 2:43 ` Laszlo Ersek 2016-09-23 2:44 ` Zhu, Yonghong @ 2016-09-23 2:44 ` Gao, Liming 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Gao, Liming @ 2016-09-23 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Laszlo Ersek, Bruce Cran, edk2-devel@ml01.01.org Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, Zhu, Yonghong Thanks! Ok for yonghong. > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:44 AM > To: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>; > edk2-devel@ml01.01.org > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>; Zhu, Yonghong > <yonghong.zhu@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2] NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations > disabled) > > On 09/22/16 06:52, Gao, Liming wrote: > > Laszlo: > > Yes. GCC tool chain has no NOOPT setting in tools_def.txt. Could you > > help submit one bug in Bugzilla? > > I filed <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129>. > > Since all (open?) BaseTools BZs seem to be assigned to Yonghong at the > moment, I followed suit here. If that's not okay, please modify the > Assignee field accordingly. > > Thanks! > Laszlo > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of > >> Laszlo Ersek > >> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:41 AM > >> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>; edk2-devel@ml01.01.org > >> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > >> Subject: Re: [edk2] NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations > >> disabled) > >> > >> On 09/22/16 05:02, Bruce Cran wrote: > >>> Would it be possible to either have a NOOPT build for OVMF added, or > >>> have the DEBUG build disable optimizations? Personally I'd expect > >>> debug builds in general to disable optimizations to allow easy > >>> source-level debugging, but it seems the decision has been made to > keep > >>> optimizations enabled for EDK2 and have a NOOPT configuration for > >>> debugging? > >> > >> Yes, I seem to recall that DEBUG means optimizations enabled, but debug > >> code (such as DEBUG(), ASSERT(), DEBUG_CODE(...), > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR()) > >> included. Indeed NOOPT seems to be what edk2 assigns generally to the > >> build you'd like. > >> > >> A NOOPT build target for OVMF (and more generally for GCC toolchains I > >> guess?) should be possible, likely even welcome, I believe. If only > >> someone contributed such BaseTools patches. :) > >> > >> ('git grep -e NOOPT --and -e GCC -- BaseTools' returns no hits.) > >> > >> Thanks > >> Laszlo > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> edk2-devel mailing list > >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org > >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-09-23 2:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-09-22 3:02 NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) Bruce Cran 2016-09-22 3:40 ` Laszlo Ersek 2016-09-22 4:52 ` Gao, Liming 2016-09-23 2:43 ` Laszlo Ersek 2016-09-23 2:44 ` Zhu, Yonghong 2016-09-23 2:44 ` Gao, Liming
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox