I missed that it was for the build-tool source itself and not for the targets that are built using edk2 and the API itself.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:55 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 23:53, David F. <df7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't know, to me it's very clear that UINTN is talking about the > target, just like size_t would be. > > > > But which target? This change is against the source of the BaseTools, > which are host tools that can be used to build a single target image > consisting of 32-bit and 64-bit modules. So which size is the native > size in this case? > > > There are/were a bunch of API's using UINTN so using UINTN was > desirable, and where needed UINTN_MAX. > > > > I just don't see an advantage to removing it. Do see disadvantage to > removing it for breaking existing code and for those that want the "native" > (best/fasted/most efficient) int size for the processor (similar again to > size_t) > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:46 AM Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 12/11/18 08:11, David F. wrote: > >> > Not sure why you'd take that out when someone using UINTN for > variables may > >> > want to use MAX_UINTN ? Future may be different. > >> > >> The UINTN type comes from the UEFI spec: > >> > >> Unsigned value of native width. (4 bytes on supported 32-bit > >> processor instructions, 8 bytes on supported 64-bit processor > >> instructions, 16 bytes on supported 128-bit processor instructions) > >> > >> In this sense, "native" refers to the firmware execution environment. > >> The firmware execution environment need not have anything in common with > >> the build environment. (You can build 32-bit ARM firmware on X64 hosts.) > >> In such a scenario, using UINTN *at all* is fraught with > >> misunderstandings. It *would* be possible to use UINTN as it applies to > >> the build (= hosted) environment, and in that sense MAX_UINTN would also > >> be possible to define. However, the code being removed (= defining > >> MAX_UINTN as MAX_ADDRESS) proves that that approach would be very easy > >> to misunderstand and misuse. People could easily mistake it for applying > >> to the firmware execution environment. > >> > >> UINT32 and UINT64 are not affected by this ambiguity. > >> > >> Optimally, given that the build utilities target a hosted C runtime, > >> they should use standard C types, such as "unsigned int", or e.g. > >> "uint32_t". Together with standard C macros expressing limits, such as > >> UINT_MAX (from <limits.h>) and UINT32_MAX (from <stdint.h>). > >> > >> Clearly no-one has capacity to clean up BaseTools like this. For > >> starters, we should at least remove whatever actively causes confusion. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Laszlo > >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:08 AM Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 11/30/18 23:45, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >>> The maximum value that can be represented by the native word size > >> >>> of the *target* should be irrelevant when compiling tools that > >> >>> run on the build *host*. So drop the definition of MAX_UINTN, now > >> >>> that we no longer use it. > >> >>> > >> >>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 > >> >>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> > >> >>> Reviewed-by: Jaben Carsey <jaben.car...@intel.com> > >> >>> --- > >> >>> BaseTools/Source/C/Common/CommonLib.h | 1 - > >> >>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > >> >>> > >> >>> diff --git a/BaseTools/Source/C/Common/CommonLib.h > >> >> b/BaseTools/Source/C/Common/CommonLib.h > >> >>> index 6930d9227b87..b1c6c00a3478 100644 > >> >>> --- a/BaseTools/Source/C/Common/CommonLib.h > >> >>> +++ b/BaseTools/Source/C/Common/CommonLib.h > >> >>> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND, > >> >> EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. > >> >>> > >> >>> #define MAX_LONG_FILE_PATH 500 > >> >>> > >> >>> -#define MAX_UINTN MAX_ADDRESS > >> >>> #define MAX_UINT64 ((UINT64)0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFULL) > >> >>> #define MAX_UINT16 ((UINT16)0xFFFF) > >> >>> #define MAX_UINT8 ((UINT8)0xFF) > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> edk2-devel mailing list > >> >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org > >> >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel > >> >> > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
