It was introduced in 2.39 it seems. GCC 12 onwards contains this binutils
version as per my understanding. This version was released quite long back.
I can double check by submitting it through edk2 CI to ensure it works.
Current CI version is already GCC 12.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 5:47 PM Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 
Thanks!
=D


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#109813): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109813
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102016149/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to