Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

...@linaro.org> >Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017 > >Thanks Liming, much appreciated! > >I'll send the comment harmonization patch as soon as I see the >VS2017/ARM64 changes in edk2 mainline. > >Regards, > >/Pete > >On 2018.03.16

Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

01.org; Gao, Liming <liming@intel.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> 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 i

Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

, 2018 7:04 PM To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: Gao, Liming <liming@intel.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> 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. T

Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

.com>; Ard Biesheuvel > <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> > 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 st

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 is that our current .S files do *not* have the same comment styles in the first place. If you look at

Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

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,

Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

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

Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

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

Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

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

Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

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 >

[edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

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

[edk2] [PATCH 0/4] Add ARM64 support for VS2017

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