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 56269D806D1 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:51:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=Wc7tV3hHLtNHER9aDMdCIxmlGRlwWQ5zg457g+AFbRY=; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:Precedence:List-Subscribe:List-Help:Sender:List-Id:Mailing-List:Delivered-To:Reply-To:List-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Unsubscribe:Content-Language:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; s=20140610; t=1697730675; v=1; b=dWP+yxSz5zLOfKGYVmeE9vqFpvf23NAfw46cwjsDZgFxE2+Bil7GWXaEZ63dOY9rYZpOc6xE 7XGjzZVamTpCN1byEP1+1Z3pYfs2wLhBno27SjvL3cJtTn6sA3LqVSTj1OKf2eBPv7zJzbYJu9N lACXzm3OMWBYhhiVT5xNqu2k= X-Received: by 127.0.0.2 with SMTP id 0rCiYY7687511xg6OXCBTjNI; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:51:15 -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.web11.31453.1697730673930264524 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:51:14 -0700 X-Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-38-x_EC2SBqPei7339tFJecsQ-1; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:51:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: x_EC2SBqPei7339tFJecsQ-1 X-Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (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 105C6899EF5; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:51:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from [10.39.193.11] (unknown [10.39.193.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6739D25CB; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <60332378-d0f2-a915-ff60-782e5215aa4c@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 17:51:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 2/2] OvmfPkg/RiscVVirt: Override for RV CPU Features To: Dhaval Sharma , devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: Oliver Steffen References: <20231017121755.190285-1-dhaval@rivosinc.com> <20231017121755.190285-3-dhaval@rivosinc.com> <5466efed-8dd4-1b8a-2bce-d0f324532f27@redhat.com> <53a05d2b-7288-8d6e-d338-f09bb2c16a7b@redhat.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 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 Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io,lersek@redhat.com List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click List-Unsubscribe: X-Gm-Message-State: aa3QnmA5HjTqKzokteoq8nvyx7686176AA= 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=dWP+yxSz; spf=pass (spool.mail.gandi.net: domain of bounce@groups.io designates 66.175.222.108 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce@groups.io; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=redhat.com (policy=none) On 10/19/23 16:37, Dhaval Sharma wrote: > It was introduced in 2.39 it seems. Hm, then the macros should still be added please; RHEL9/EPEL9 only offer binutils 2.38. > GCC 12 onwards contains this > binutils version as per my understanding. No, gcc doesn't "contain" binutils. They are separate packages, and their versions are not tightly locked together. > This version was released > quite long back. I can double check by submitting it through edk2 CI to > ensure it works. Current CI version is already GCC 12. It's the binutils version that matters for this. (And even if CI has gcc-12, I'd still ask for the macros, because RHEL9 / EPEL9 don't seem to have a new enough binutils.) Thanks Laszlo > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 5:47 PM Laszlo Ersek > wrote: > > 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 > > > > -- > Thanks! > =D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#109816): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109816 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-