On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:20:30AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > 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.
I won't argue with that. / Leif _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel