I don't know, to me it's very clear that UINTN is talking about the target, just like size_t would be.
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >>> Reviewed-by: Jaben Carsey <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> 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 <[email protected]> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> edk2-devel mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
