Bret, Details aside this ECC issue got me thinking it might be useful to some how tag code that follows different, subsetted, or alternate rules, or uses different build environments. I was kind of thinking of doing something like how we tag the licenses in the header comments [1]. I would say nothing means edk2 rules. I can see vendors maybe having different internal rules, or us wanting to distinguish test code from production code. The general idea if we start this tools can be smarter and that seems like a good thing.
This is just a wild idea, so I’d like to see what other people think? [1] SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent Thanks, Andrew Fish > On Sep 24, 2020, at 7:57 PM, Bret Barkelew <bret.barke...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > Andrew, > > That’s actually what got me here. EccCheck runs as part of our CI now (but it > didn’t when I wrote these tests a year ago). I need to either figure out how > to get this code to pass EccCheck in a reasonable way, or just not contribute > the tests and say “go to Mu for the tests, if you want them”. > > Skipping the contribution isn’t a desirable outcome at all for a number of > reasons, not the least of which is that we (MS and others) are trying > encourage all contributions to come with tests, so the process of writing > them needs to be simple and painless. > > - Bret > > From: Andrew Fish <mailto:af...@apple.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 7:48 PM > To: edk2-devel-groups-io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew > <mailto:bret.barke...@microsoft.com> > Cc: Ken Taylor <mailto:ken_tay...@phoenix.com> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] ECC: Won't somebody PLEASE think of > the... test structures. > > Bret, > > I’ve had this issue with EFI code too. It will compile with for DEBUG and > RELEASE as the optimizer removes the memcpy/memset. So you only see a build > failure when you compiler NOOPT (and there are no intrinsic libs). I mostly > see this in platform code when I try to compile a single driver/lib NOOPT and > it fails to link due to the missing intrinsic. > > The easy to enforce this is to compile with optimizations enabled and don’t > enable intrinsic libs. Not sure if that is really practical from the test > point of view. > > Seems the tool caught the coding style violation so I guess we could try to > “make running that tool easier”. Maybe hooking into patchcheck.py, making > some kind of githook, or adding a git command? > > Thanks, > > Andrew Fish > > > > On Sep 24, 2020, at 7:25 PM, Bret Barkelew via groups.io > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.io%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cd438e9952e1c476285f608d860fd7e71%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637365989149774199&sdata=SaAatm8guPgl%2F63Sc%2B0AAbReBqeBPuKBJZjAmEWstU8%3D&reserved=0> > <bret.barkelew=microsoft....@groups.io > <mailto:bret.barkelew=microsoft....@groups.io>> wrote: > > So for context, this is a new host-based test that should only run within a > platform OS, so intrinsics aren’t the big deal that they would be in FW code. > > But we do need to figure out how to simultaneously adhere to the coding > convention while enabling test authoring. > Or we chose to not enforce quite as many things for tests. > > I’d prefer the first. > > - Bret > > From: Ken Taylor <mailto:ken_tay...@phoenix.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 6:57 PM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew > <mailto:bret.barke...@microsoft.com> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: ECC: Won't somebody PLEASE think of the... test > structures. > > If the structure is a non-static local variable, most compilers will silently > inject an intrinsic call to memcpy in function initialization. This leads to > an intermittent linker error. > > If the compiler you use automatically supports an intrinsic memcpy in the > given architecture or optimizes out the memcpy, it will build for you and you > won’t know you need to link to an intrinsic support library in order to build > cross platform. This leads to code that builds for you, but not for me. > > Regards, > -Ken. > > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> > [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>] On Behalf Of Bret > Barkelew via groups.io > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.io%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Cd438e9952e1c476285f608d860fd7e71%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637365989149784192&sdata=RYkXf9eJ%2B%2BAAFofHhAD2BisFsokbP28A6pyE5iaqRpo%3D&reserved=0> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 6:23 PM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> > Subject: [edk2-devel] ECC: Won't somebody PLEASE think of the... test > structures. > > ERROR - EFI coding style error > ERROR - *Error code: 5007 > ERROR - *There should be no initialization of a variable as part of its > declaration > ERROR - *file: > //home/corthon/_uefi/edk2_qemu_ci/edk2/MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyUnitTest/VariablePolicyUnitTest.c > ERROR - *Line number: 333 > ERROR - *Variable Name: MatchCheckPolicy > > EccCheck no likey: > SIMPLE_VARIABLE_POLICY_ENTRY ValidationPolicy = { > { > VARIABLE_POLICY_ENTRY_REVISION, > sizeof(VARIABLE_POLICY_ENTRY) + sizeof(TEST_VAR_1_NAME), > sizeof(VARIABLE_POLICY_ENTRY), > TEST_GUID_1, > TEST_POLICY_MIN_SIZE_NULL, > TEST_POLICY_MAX_SIZE_NULL, > TEST_POLICY_ATTRIBUTES_NULL, > TEST_POLICY_ATTRIBUTES_NULL, > VARIABLE_POLICY_TYPE_NO_LOCK > }, > TEST_VAR_1_NAME > }; > > But you can’t init this structure separately without addressing each field. > Can a brother get an override? > > - Bret > > > > <95B370A7BEED49AAB797022E8F260C8F.png> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#65653): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/65653 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/77131032/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
