Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] BaseTools: add BASETOOLS define

["Marvin Häuser" <mhaeuser@posteo.de>]

> On 14. Apr 2023, at 16:37, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 12:29:21PM +0000, Marvin Häuser wrote:
>> Hi Gerd,
>> 
>> Thanks for your effort!
>> 
>> Sorry, but I *really* dislike this “BASETOOLS” notion. There might be
>> external tools that also want to use the header (like we do with AUDK)
>> and also edk2 supports host-based unit tests. Imo the macro name
>> should be generic, like “HOST_OS” or “USERLAND” or something (I’m bad
>> with names :) ).
> 
> I'm certainly open to better naming ideas.
> 
> Underlying problem is that x64 ProcessorBind.h sets visibility to
> hidden (anyone knows why?).

It combats some awkward ELF symbol magic (I think preemption?) which would otherwise generate a GOT.

> Seems to be fine for freestanding binaries,
> but when linking host tools against shared libraries things break.  For
> some reason on ubuntu only, fedora works fine (both gcc and clang).

Our Ubuntu CI also works with a similar change in AUDK.

> 
> Automatically detecting freestanding vs. hosted would be even better,
> anyone knows whenever there is a define which can be used for this?  At
> least the gcc man page doesn't mention any ...

Don’t think so. :(

> 
>> Speaking of host-based unit tests, why are they not affected by the
>> issue?
> 
> Hmm, good question.  Maybe they are simple enough to not need libc
> symbols.  Guess I should try a full test build on ubuntu, not only
> building basetools.

Tyvm!

Best regards,
Marvin

> 
> take care,
>  Gerd
>