From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02B731A2057 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE5D8E004; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 02:43:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-4.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.4]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8N2hrbQ025174; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:43:53 -0400 To: "Gao, Liming" , Bruce Cran , "edk2-devel@ml01.01.org" References: <37fea717-e59b-d20b-8223-54ed6caa215d@cran.org.uk> <9d78e357-1490-3760-c165-85c5242bf7de@redhat.com> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14B47BA46@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , "Zhu, Yonghong" From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 04:43:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14B47BA46@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 02:43:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled) X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 02:43:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 . 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 ; edk2-devel@ml01.01.org >> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel >> 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