Re: BaseTools/BinWrappers question?

Liming Gao


-----Original Message-----
From: afish@... [mailto:afish@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:17 AM
To:; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@...>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] BaseTools/BinWrappers question?

On Aug 19, 2019, at 6:09 AM, Liming Gao <liming.gao@...> wrote:

This is the history reason. Before, Edk2 BaseTools included the binary
Windows tools in BaseTools\Bin\Win32. There is no
BaseTools/BinWrappers/WindowsLike directory.

When migrate BaseTools Windows tools from binary to source build, Edk2
BaseTools C source is still compiled to BaseTools\Bin\Win32 directory. Because
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.


Andrew Fish

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
Andrew Fish via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 1:01 AM
Subject: [edk2-devel] BaseTools/BinWrappers question?

Why does BaseTools/BinWrappers/WindowsLike only have wrappers for
Python commands, while BaseTools/BinWrappers/PosixLike has
wrappers for C based tools too?


Andrew Fish

Join to automatically receive all group messages.