On 17 October 2016 at 09:33, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:28:50AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> > diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c >> > b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c >> > index 64afc4d..16683ef 100644 >> > --- a/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c >> > +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/Library/ArmVirtGicArchLib/ArmVirtGicArchLib.c >> > @@ -79,11 +79,11 @@ ArmVirtGicArchLibConstructor ( >> > >> > // RegProp[0..1] == { GICD base, GICD size } >> > DistBase = SwapBytes64 (Reg[0]); >> > - ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT32); >> > + ASSERT (DistBase < MAX_UINT64); >> > >> >> This becomes equivalent to 'DistBase != MAX_UINT64' given that a >> UINT64 cannot exceed MAX_UINT64. That is a nonsensical thing to >> assert, so it is better to simply drop it > > Random thought: > Could we keep the assert(s) and change the test to MAX_UINTN, to have > a sanity test over whether a 32-bit plaform ends up with a duff > address? >
That seems like a useful thing in general, but given that we don't do that anywhere else, I'd rather we just remove them. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel