On 10/19/23 11:22, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 10/19/23 08:48, Dhaval Sharma wrote:
>> (11) I agree that we should use symbolic names rather than >> magic constants, but raw encodings of machine instructions don't belong >> into a >> C header file. [Dhaval] This bytecode was introduced thinking what >> if all compilers do not support it. but given the default compiler in >> edk2 GCC 12 supports it >> we can eliminate this byte encoding completely to make it easy and >> simple to consume for others. > > To be honest, I can't determine the minimum expected gcc version for > edk2. "BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template" states a minimum version for > NASM, for example, but I can't find a similar gcc requirement there. > > gcc-12 does work for me personally, because my riscv cross-compiler is > "riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 12.1.1 20220507 (Red Hat Cross 12.1.1-1)". > > If the CI environment that builds these patches also provides gcc-12+, > then I figure you should be set. Wait, for the assembly language source files, what matters is the binutils version, not the gcc version. Mine is "GNU assembler version 2.38-3.el9" (from "binutils-riscv64-linux-gnu-2.38-3.el9.x86_64"). Is that sufficient for the instuctions in question? (More generally -- what version does our CI env expect / provide?) Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#109802): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109802 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102016149/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/9847357/21656/1706620634/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
