Re: [edk2-devel] BaseTools/BinWrappers question?

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

Andrew:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: afish@apple.com [mailto:afish@apple.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:17 AM
>To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>
>Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] BaseTools/BinWrappers question?
>
>
>
>> On Aug 19, 2019, at 6:09 AM, Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrew:
>>  This is the history reason. Before, Edk2 BaseTools included the binary
>Windows tools in BaseTools\Bin\Win32. There is no
>BaseTools/BinWrappers/WindowsLike directory.
>>
>>  When migrate BaseTools Windows tools from binary to source build, Edk2
>BaseTools C source is still compiled to BaseTools\Bin\Win32 directory. Because
>BaseTools\Bin\Win32 is set into system PATH env, there is no requirement to
>add their wrapper scripts in BaseTools/BinWrappers/WindowsLike directory.
>>
>
>Liming,
>
>Thanks for the answer, I was guessing it was related to the history difference
>with the tools.
>
>I ran some experiments years ago and calling the C function through the bash
>script seemed to take up 5% of the build time. Would it make sense to use a
>path for Unix builds too vs. the wrappers?
>
Thanks for your comments. I will try this way. If it could improve the build performance, 
it is valuable to make this change. 

>Thanks,
>
>Andrew Fish
>
>> Thanks
>> Liming
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of
>Andrew Fish via Groups.Io
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 1:01 AM
>>> To: devel@edk2.groups.io
>>> Subject: [edk2-devel] BaseTools/BinWrappers question?
>>>
>>> Why does BaseTools/BinWrappers/WindowsLike only have wrappers for
>Python commands, while  BaseTools/BinWrappers/PosixLike has
>>> wrappers for C based tools too?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Andrew Fish
>>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>