Yes, I will follow up.
From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:44 AM
To: Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; Bruce Cran <br...@cran.org.uk>;
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>; Zhu, Yonghong
Subject: Re: [edk2] NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations disabled)
On 09/22/16 06:52, Gao, Liming wrote:
> 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
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf
>> Of Laszlo Ersek
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 11:41 AM
>> To: Bruce Cran <br...@cran.org.uk>; edk2-de...@ml01.01.org
>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>
>> Subject: Re: [edk2] NOOPT OVMF build (or otherwise with optimizations
>> 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
>> 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.)
>> edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel mailing list