Karunakar and Mike: Basetools doesn't support Feature Flag Expressions in INF file. It just ignores them. Because there are other solutions, I would like to propose to update INF spec to remove Feature Flag Expressions and avoid the confuse.
Thanks Liming > -----Original Message----- > From: Kinney, Michael D > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 2:54 AM > To: karunakarpoosapa...@dell.com; Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; > ler...@redhat.com; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Kinney, > Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> > Cc: sumanth.vidyadh...@dell.com; shekar.bab...@dell.com; Gao, Liming > <liming....@intel.com>; sriramkumar.r...@dell.com > Subject: RE: [edk2] Conditional Compilation support in INF file > > Karunakar, > > Feature Flag Expressions is a concept that is defined in the > specs, but is a feature that is not fully implemented. Liming > should be able to provide details on what has been implemented > and validated in BaseTools. I think the reason that this feature > has not been implemented fully is that we have been able to find > alternate ways to get the equivalent results. Here are a few > example techniques: > > 3a: One approach is to use multiple INF files and select the > Right INF for different types of platform builds in DSC file. > If multiple modules share source files but have different > elements produced/consumed/depex, then multiple INF > file is an approach that makes the produced/consumed/depex > clear and is compatible with UDP Spec. > > 3c: One approach is to use DEBUG_CODE(), DEBUG_CODE_BEGIN(), > and DEBUG_CODE_END() macros in a single version of the > source files and enable/disable the debug code using BIT2 > in the following PCD: > > ## The mask is used to control DebugLib behavior.<BR><BR> > # BIT0 - Enable Debug Assert.<BR> > # BIT1 - Enable Debug Print.<BR> > # BIT2 - Enable Debug Code.<BR> > # BIT3 - Enable Clear Memory.<BR> > # BIT4 - Enable BreakPoint as ASSERT.<BR> > # BIT5 - Enable DeadLoop as ASSERT.<BR> > # @Prompt Debug Property. > # @Expression 0x80000002 | (gEfiMdePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdDebugPropertyMask > & 0xC0) == 0 > gEfiMdePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdDebugPropertyMask|0|UINT8|0x00000005 > > 3c: Another approach is to use multiple INF files and select > the one needed for debug/release in DSC file. > > If these techniques, or other techniques that other community > Member may be using do not work for your use cases, and > Feature Flag Expressions are the best approach, then Bugzillas > Can be entered with supporting use cases to justify adding the > feature to BaseTools. > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel- > > boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of > > karunakarpoosapa...@dell.com > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 10:34 PM > > To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Gao, > > Liming <liming....@intel.com>; ler...@redhat.com; edk2- > > de...@lists.01.org > > Cc: sumanth.vidyadh...@dell.com; shekar.bab...@dell.com; > > Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; > > sriramkumar.r...@dell.com > > Subject: Re: [edk2] Conditional Compilation support in > > INF file > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you very much for your valuable thoughts. > > Below are my concerns/thoughts, Could you please help on > > > > 1. Is there any module or INF already using > > FeatureFlagExpression feature support in current edk2 > > source? > > 2. If not, could you please help in providing more > > detailed spec/Doc to verify this support. > > 3. Below are the few of use cases we're looking for, Did > > really FeatureFlagExpression support all of this? > > a. If we've this support we can add different > > protocols in DEPEX section, like we can put condition > > check and add rotococol1 for Notebook and Protocol2 for > > Desktop. > > b. Help in simplifying build files. We > > could dispense with the prefix to inf files and more > > developer convenient. > > c. Sometimes we would like to add Conditional .C > > and .H for file inclusion. Helps in our Debug / release > > builds as well.. > > Example; we do have release and debug > > build, although Source Section has - IA32,X64, Common, > > IPF, EBC exclusively. > > But for the same Source section, we > > can't have choices based on our build inputs... > > > > #if Condition1 > > [Sources] > > Main.c > > #elif Condition2 > > [Sources] > > DebugMain.c > > > > 4. I don't think INF file support MACRO support, How > > complex in modifying the BaseTools to support Condition > > checks and MACRO support? > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Karunakar > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kinney, Michael D > > [mailto:michael.d.kin...@intel.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 10:23 PM > > To: Gao, Liming; Laszlo Ersek; Poosapalli, Karunakar; > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Kinney, Michael D > > Cc: Vidyadhara, Sumanth; Gao, Liming; Raju, SriramKumar > > Subject: RE: [edk2] Conditional Compilation support in > > INF file > > > > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > > > > There is one additional constraint for adding > > conditionals to INF files. > > > > The UEFI Distribution Packaging Specification defines a > > format to share package and module content in a standard > > format and uses an XML schema for the metadata. We need > > to be able to convert between INF <--> XML and DEC <--> > > XML. > > > > http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/Dist_P > > ackage_Spec_1_1.pdf > > > > If we define extensions to INF or DEC files, we need to > > make sure these transforms are still supported. If an > > extension prevents these transforms, then we either need > > to change the extension to be compatible or work on an > > update to the UDP spec to support the extension in the > > XML. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Mike > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel- > > > boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Gao, Liming > > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 7:48 AM > > > To: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>; > > > karunakarpoosapa...@dell.com; edk2-devel@lists.01.org > > > Cc: sumanth.vidyadh...@dell.com; Gao, Liming > > <liming....@intel.com>; > > > sriramkumar.r...@dell.com > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] Conditional Compilation support in > > INF file > > > > > > 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 statement. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Liming > > > > -----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 > > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > > > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel > > _______________________________________________ > > edk2-devel mailing list > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
