Re: NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled)

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 09/22/16 06:52, Gao, Liming wrote:
> Laszlo:
> Yes. GCC tool chain has no NOOPT setting in tools_def.txt. Could you
> help submit one bug in Bugzilla?

I filed <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129>.

Since all (open?) BaseTools BZs seem to be assigned to Yonghong at the
moment, I followed suit here. If that's not okay, please modify the
Assignee field accordingly.

Thanks!
Laszlo

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
>> Laszlo Ersek
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:41 AM
>> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>; edk2-devel@ml01.01.org
>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>> Subject: Re: [edk2] NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations
>> disabled)
>>
>> On 09/22/16 05:02, Bruce Cran wrote:
>>> Would it be possible to either have a NOOPT build for OVMF added, or
>>> have the DEBUG build disable optimizations?   Personally I'd expect
>>> debug builds in general to disable optimizations to allow easy
>>> source-level debugging, but it seems the decision has been made to keep
>>> optimizations enabled for EDK2 and have a NOOPT configuration for
>>> debugging?
>>
>> Yes, I seem to recall that DEBUG means optimizations enabled, but debug
>> code (such as DEBUG(), ASSERT(), DEBUG_CODE(...), ASSERT_EFI_ERROR())
>> included. Indeed NOOPT seems to be what edk2 assigns generally to the
>> build you'd like.
>>
>> A NOOPT build target for OVMF (and more generally for GCC toolchains I
>> guess?) should be possible, likely even welcome, I believe. If only
>> someone contributed such BaseTools patches. :)
>>
>> ('git grep -e NOOPT --and -e GCC -- BaseTools' returns no hits.)
>>
>> Thanks
>> Laszlo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> edk2-devel mailing list
>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel