* 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