Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

["Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>]

Pete:
   .S for GCC assembly, .asm for MSFT assembly. They can have the different comment style. 

  Here, my comment is to make sure .asm files have the same comment style. I don't request to change .S file. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pete Batard [mailto:pete@akeo.ie]
>Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 5:28 PM
>To: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017
>
>Hi Liming,
>
>Thanks for reviewing the patches.
>
>On 2018.03.15 06:15, Gao, Liming wrote:
>> Pete:
>>    For new added ASM file in BaseLib, could you use the same comment style
>> for them? ASM use ; for the comment. Most of new files uses ; as the
>> comment, but switchstack is not.
>
>This is because SwitchStack.asm is simply SwitchStack.S, with the GCC
>assembler specifics removed, and MSVC assembler specifics added.
>
>I did not change the comment style from the original files, so the real
>issue here is that our GCC assembly files for AARCH64 do not use the
>same comment style.
>
>I'm fine with trying to harmonize the comment styles, but seeing as this
>needs to be done for both the .S and .asm, I'd rather send a patch to do
>that *after* these VS2017 changes have been applied, as I don't consider
>this correction to in scope of this patch series (because logically, the
>introduction of VS2017 should not alter any of the .S files, unless we
>reuse them, which we don't).
>
>If you agree to apply this series, I'll make sure to send a non
>VS2017-specific additional patch, that does what you request for both
>the .S and .asm.
>
>> Besides, compared to Arm arch assembly
>> file, I don't find CpuPause.asm. Is it required?
>
>That file doesn't exist for GCC (as you will see there is no
>MdePkg/Library/BaseLib/AArch64/CpuPause.S), so we don't have one for
>VS2017 either.
>
>Regards,
>
>/Pete