--Original Message-
>>> From: Pete Batard [mailto:p...@akeo.ie]
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 12:12 AM
>>> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Gao, Liming
>>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017
>>>
g
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017
I understand where you're coming from, but that means I have to recreate
this patch set, and then create a new patch for the .S (because it makes
zero sense to require the same comment style on the .asm and not r
d [mailto:p...@akeo.ie]
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 12:12 AM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Gao, Liming
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017
>
> I understand where you're coming from, but that means I have to recreate
&
riday, March 16, 2018 7:04 PM
To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Gao, Liming ; Ard Biesheuvel
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017
On 2018.03.16 08:24, Gao, Liming wrote:
Pete:
.S for GCC assembly, .asm for MSFT assembly. They can have the different
comment style.
bject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017
>
> On 2018.03.16 08:24, Gao, Liming wrote:
> > Pete:
> > .S for GCC assembly, .asm for MSFT assembly. They can have the
> > different comment style.
>
> Yes, but as I explained, the actual original issue
On 2018.03.16 08:24, Gao, Liming wrote:
Pete:
.S for GCC assembly, .asm for MSFT assembly. They can have the different
comment style.
Yes, but as I explained, the actual original issue is that our current
.S files do *not* have the same comment styles in the first place.
If you look at
Pete:
.S for GCC assembly, .asm for MSFT assembly. They can have the different
comment style.
Here, my comment is to make sure .asm files have the same comment style. I
don't request to change .S file.
>-Original Message-
>From: Pete Batard [mailto:p...@akeo.ie]
>Sent: Thursday,
Hi Liming,
Thanks for reviewing the patches.
On 2018.03.15 06:15, Gao, Liming wrote:
Pete:
For new added ASM file in BaseLib, could you use the same comment style
for them? ASM use ; for the comment. Most of new files uses ; as the
comment, but switchstack is not.
This is because SwitchSt
Pete:
For new added ASM file in BaseLib, could you use the same comment style for
them? ASM use ; for the comment. Most of new files uses ; as the comment, but
switchstack is not. Besides, compared to Arm arch assembly file, I don't find
CpuPause.asm. Is it required?
Thanks
Liming
>-Origi
On 2018.02.23 11:55, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
* PATCH 4 enables the selection of ARM64 in the conf templates.
One item of note is that the build options for ARM64 are the same as
for ARM, except for /BASE:0 which was removed to avoid error:
'invalid base address 0x0; ARM64 image cannot have
On 23 February 2018 at 09:49, Pete Batard wrote:
> This is v2, which just removes a redundant #if defined(_MSC_EXTENSIONS) in
> 1/4.
>
> This series completes VS2017 support by enabling AARCH64 compilation.
> * PATCH 1 targets the disabling of VS Level 4 warnings. The disabled
> warnings for AR
This is v2, which just removes a redundant #if defined(_MSC_EXTENSIONS) in 1/4.
This series completes VS2017 support by enabling AARCH64 compilation.
* PATCH 1 targets the disabling of VS Level 4 warnings. The disabled
warnings for ARM64 are the same as the ones for IA32, X64 and ARM.
* PATCH 2
This series completes VS2017 support by enabling AARCH64 compilation.
* PATCH 1 targets the disabling of VS Level 4 warnings. The disabled
warnings for ARM64 are the same as the ones for IA32, X64 and ARM.
* PATCH 2 adds assembly source in MdePkg/Library/BaseLib for various low
level required f
13 matches
Mail list logo
