Re: BaseTools/BinWrappers question?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: afish@... [mailto:afish@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:17 AM
To: email@example.com; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@...>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] BaseTools/BinWrappers question?
On Aug 19, 2019, at 6:09 AM, Liming Gao <liming.gao@...> wrote:Windows tools in BaseTools\Bin\Win32. There is no
This is the history reason. Before, Edk2 BaseTools included the binary
BaseTools C source is still compiled to BaseTools\Bin\Win32 directory. Because
When migrate BaseTools Windows tools from binary to source build, Edk2
BaseTools\Bin\Win32 is set into system PATH env, there is no requirement to
add their wrapper scripts in BaseTools/BinWrappers/WindowsLike directory.
Thanks for the answer, I was guessing it was related to the history difference
with the tools.
I ran some experiments years ago and calling the C function through the bash
script seemed to take up 5% of the build time. Would it make sense to use a
path for Unix builds too vs. the wrappers?
Thanks for your comments. I will try this way. If it could improve the build performance,
it is valuable to make this change.
ThanksAndrew Fish via Groups.Io
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
Python commands, while BaseTools/BinWrappers/PosixLike has
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 1:01 AM
Subject: [edk2-devel] BaseTools/BinWrappers question?
Why does BaseTools/BinWrappers/WindowsLike only have wrappers for
wrappers for C based tools too?
Join firstname.lastname@example.org to automatically receive all group messages.