I have same question. What flexibility is expected in INF? I see one request in 
[Depex] section. So, PCD support in [Depex] is added. 

Edk2 INF is used to describe the source code behavior. If the source uses 
Ppi/Protocol/Guid/Pcd, these information are always required to be described in 
INF file. The compiler can optimize the code and remove the unused 
Ppi/Protocol/Guid/Pcd. It doesn't need developer specify the conditional 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 8:54 PM
> To: karunakarpoosapa...@dell.com; Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; 
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: sumanth.vidyadh...@dell.com; sriramkumar.r...@dell.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2] Conditional Compilation support in INF file
> On 01/10/19 07:03, karunakarpoosapa...@dell.com wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I agree with providing the support like "FixedAtBuild PCD in INF". And we 
> > need to modify or provide support in BaseTools to support
> this feature.
> >
> > There are more use cases or flexibility to developer if we support 
> > Conditional compilation support in INF.
> > As we're providing support in BaseTools for FixedAtBuild PCD support in 
> > INF, Is there any challenges or drawbacks in  providing
> conditional compilation support in INF?
> This is not for me to say authoritatively, but I'm unaware of any
> specific use case that cannot be solved without this feature addition,
> and any further complexity to BaseTools should be strongly justified.
> "More convenient" is too vague for me, and the BaseTools code is already
> hard to read and debug.
> That's just my opinion, again.
> Thanks
> Laszlo
edk2-devel mailing list

Reply via email to