From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.groups.io (mail02.groups.io [66.175.222.108]) by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6A2FAC10D6 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:17:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=MUroL1XWzoM+S1XnBb99/vdAbWu/vNMATlTqjJJ9/oo=; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:Precedence:List-Subscribe:List-Help:Sender:List-Id:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:List-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Unsubscribe:Content-Language:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; s=20140610; t=1697717840; v=1; b=Sz5ueRyEWMATmLHS2Al5knSuGR/pgp088YN5STY5yz3emBWp7y7Z3gRtjOWmsynBuA/wRXDv 04KTsvYqqft190fubVKKuNi+agoLCzeOrmUWK7heAM13cRpM55PupiwLr5K7VeBtX/5ARj4h+kt depg9M6ctOqJm3qLGRBiqLVY= X-Received: by 127.0.0.2 with SMTP id DbvYYY7687511xJGuyGM4Us3; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 05:17:20 -0700 X-Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.25828.1697717840004162489 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 05:17:20 -0700 X-Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-620--sD2Wh5JOFKgNDd0s0mgGA-1; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:17:10 -0400 X-MC-Unique: -sD2Wh5JOFKgNDd0s0mgGA-1 X-Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93D7A282381A; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:17:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from [10.39.193.11] (unknown [10.39.193.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1AD0492BFB; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53a05d2b-7288-8d6e-d338-f09bb2c16a7b@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:17:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/2] OvmfPkg/RiscVVirt: Override for RV CPU Features From: "Laszlo Ersek" To: Dhaval Sharma Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, Oliver Steffen Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io,lersek@redhat.com References: <20231017121755.190285-1-dhaval@rivosinc.com> <20231017121755.190285-3-dhaval@rivosinc.com> <5466efed-8dd4-1b8a-2bce-d0f324532f27@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5466efed-8dd4-1b8a-2bce-d0f324532f27@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: List-Help: Sender: devel@edk2.groups.io List-Id: Mailing-List: list devel@edk2.groups.io; contact devel+owner@edk2.groups.io List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click List-Unsubscribe: X-Gm-Message-State: 92QwTl0CvMwKbOqwruhNEF9Nx7686176AA= Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-GND-Status: LEGIT Authentication-Results: spool.mail.gandi.net; dkim=pass header.d=groups.io header.s=20140610 header.b=Sz5ueRyE; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=redhat.com (policy=none); spf=pass (spool.mail.gandi.net: domain of bounce@groups.io designates 66.175.222.108 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce@groups.io On 10/19/23 11:22, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 10/19/23 08:48, Dhaval Sharma wrote: >> (11) I agree that we should use symbolic names rather than >> magic constants, but raw encodings of machine instructions don't belong >> into a >>      C header file. [Dhaval] This bytecode was introduced thinking what >> if all compilers do not support it. but given the default compiler in >> edk2 GCC 12 supports it >>      we can eliminate this byte encoding completely to make it easy and >> simple to consume for others. > > To be honest, I can't determine the minimum expected gcc version for > edk2. "BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template" states a minimum version for > NASM, for example, but I can't find a similar gcc requirement there. > > gcc-12 does work for me personally, because my riscv cross-compiler is > "riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 12.1.1 20220507 (Red Hat Cross 12.1.1-1)". > > If the CI environment that builds these patches also provides gcc-12+, > then I figure you should be set. Wait, for the assembly language source files, what matters is the binutils version, not the gcc version. Mine is "GNU assembler version 2.38-3.el9" (from "binutils-riscv64-linux-gnu-2.38-3.el9.x86_64"). Is that sufficient for the instuctions in question? (More generally -- what version does our CI env expect / provide?) Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#109802): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109802 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102016149/7686176 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/12367111/7686176/1913456212/xyzzy [rebecca@openfw.io] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-