> 1) It exports PYTHONHASHSEED=1 (needed?);
Setting PYTHONHASHSEED causes python hashes to be iterated in a
deterministic order. The autogen tools use hashes internally, so
setting PYTHONHASHSEED to a fixed value causes them to produce identical
output each time they are run with identical input. That helps avoid
unnecessary rebuilds of code which hasn't actually changed. It affects
items like the order of dependencies in the generated makefiles.
Setting PYTHONHASHSEED knocked several minutes off of the rebuild time
for one of our platforms. Recommended.
Brian J. Johnson
HPE
-------- Original Message --------
From: tlaro...@polynum.com [mailto:tlaro...@polynum.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 11:59 AM
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>
Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com>, Leif Lindholm
<quic_llind...@quicinc.com>, Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
Subject: [edk2-devel] edk2setup.sh shortcomings
Le Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 05:50:32PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 12:29:32PM +0100, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
edk2setup.sh has shortcomings. To list some:
- The functions return a status but it is not tested; hence the
script goes to the end with a final "return $?" that simply
returns the status of the last command that is "unset" which
always successfully unsets, even a not set variable. Hence a
script can not catch a failure by testing the end status that is
always 0;
- If WORKSPACE is set, --reconfig does nothing;
- If EDK_TOOLS_PATH and PACKAGES_PATH are set, even to incorrect
values, the script succeeds even if BaseTools/ is not found
anywhere;
- The comments are obsolete (1): bash(1) is required because the syntax
is not POSIX.2 sh(1) compliant and because some Makefile recipes
have "bash'isms" (indeed, a GMAKE variable should be exported
with a definition of "/path/to/gnu/make SHELL=/path/to/bash" and
a canonical call should be "$GMAKE ...");
- The comments are obsolete (2): CYGWIN is not treated in anyway
specifically and, on the contrary, the regexp translation of ':'
in spaces for PACKAGES_PATH would be sure to create a mess with
a MS Windows like path;
- The settings have obviously evolved and the help message does not
list all the variables that can be set and that do modify the
way the setting is done;
- Some commands (notably whereis(1)) are not standard utilities, not
to be found on all Unix like systems and, even if found, have
greatly diverging behaviors.
What is the preferred procedure?
Ignore it and to just use BaseTools/BuildEnv directly?
I'm not fully sure what value it adds ...
That's the problem: it does not add much, but it adds some things and
the problem (for me) is to know if these are used or not:
1) It exports PYTHONHASHSEED=1 (needed?);
2) Undocumented features allow to use something else instead of
BaseTools/BuildEnv...
I also think that it would be far better to state clearly what is
needed (including with BaseTools/BuildEnv and the
like) and let builders simply set the correct environment with
defined variables being used afterwards (MAKE, SHELL, PYTHON and
so on).
To state, for example the Python major version required and that
everything depends on GNU make and bash(1) (hence the
/path/to/gnu/make SHELL=/path/to/bash invocation) and that
would be it.
But: who uses it (edk2setup.sh) and with what? This question, I can not
answer, obviously...
Should I file BZ to list all the
problems so that someone authorized may address them? Or can I propose
a patch to address these (keeping it backward compatible with a present
correct use) with a reasonable hope that, as an exception that will not
become a rule, it will not be ignored?
Sending patches has a much higher chance to succeed, although there is
no guarantee unfortunately.
Hum... There is a very lethal weapon actually in use: the pillow. I
already sent various patches and they are silently ignored...
If my contribution will be ignored as others have been till now, honesty
should be to clearly state: "we don't care and we won't care" so that
I can use my time trying to solve the problems I want to address at a
different level than UEFI...
Best,
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#99503): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/99503
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/96697952/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
