On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 01:30:12AM +0000, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist)
wrote:
> > There should be exactly one variant of IoLib.c. Well, these days we need a
> > separate one for ARM/AARCH64 under hw virtualization.
> >
> > IoLibArm, IoLibEbc and IoLibRiscV have *exactly* the same requirements.
> > And now x86 uses NASM regardless of build platform, I think it would make
> > sense to move the contents of IoLibGcc and IoLibMsc into assembler.
>
> That looks weird and doesn't make sense to use Arm code for RISC-V
> even the functionality is exactly the same to IoLibRiscV. I will
> still keep it as IoLibRiscV.c until there is a generic IoLib for
> different arch.
This is C code. It is no more weird to use "another architecture's"
code than it is to add another file doing exactly the same thing but
pretending it is "for" another architecture.
And one of those options does not pile up even more code duplication
in the tree.
But you are welcome to convince some other maintainer of the opposite.
/
Leif
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#48365): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/48365
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/34258203/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
