gt; de...@lists.01.org; Kinney, Michael D
> Cc: ler...@redhat.com; Gao, Liming
> Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure safe bitwise
> operations.
>
> Marvin,
>
> Thanks. I agree that there may be some compiler behavior assumptions.
>
> I would pref
äuser
> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:11 AM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Kinney, Michael D
>
> Cc: ler...@redhat.com; Gao, Liming
>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure
> safe bitwise operations.
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 11:40 AM
> To: Marvin Häuser ; edk2-
> de...@lists.01.org
> Cc: michael.d.kin...@intel.com; liming@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure safe bitwise
> oper
> -Original Message-
> From: Kinney, Michael D
> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:42 AM
> To: Marvin Häuser ; edk2-
> de...@lists.01.org; Kinney, Michael D
> Cc: ler...@redhat.com; Gao, Liming
> Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure safe bitwise
ts.01.org; Laszlo Ersek
>> Cc: michael.d.kin...@intel.com; liming@intel.com
>> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure safe bitwise
>> operations.
>>
>> I have just locally updated all BIT defines to use the ULL prefix and added
>> casts to
edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Kinney, Michael D
>
> Cc: ler...@redhat.com; Gao, Liming
>
> Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure
> safe bitwise operations.
>
> Hey Mike,
>
> You are right, the patch was premature because I did
> not consider any 'incorre
gt;
> > Best regards,
> > Marvin.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-
> > > From: Laszlo Ersek
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:57 PM
> > > To: Marvin Häuser ; edk2-
> > > de...@lists.01.org
> > > Cc: michael.d.kin.
ginal Message-
> From: Kinney, Michael D
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:37 PM
> To: Marvin Häuser ; edk2-
> de...@lists.01.org; Laszlo Ersek ; Kinney, Michael D
>
> Cc: Gao, Liming
> Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure safe bitwise
> opera
kin...@intel.com; liming@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure safe bitwise
> operations.
>
> Hey Laszlo,
>
> I cut your rant because it is not strictly related to this patch. However,
> thank
> you for composing it nevertheless because i
ook.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 6:21 AM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Laszlo Ersek
>
> Cc: Kinney, Michael D ;
> Gao, Liming
> Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure
> safe bitwise operations.
>
> Hey Laszlo,
>
> I cut your rant becau
.
> -Original Message-
> From: Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:57 PM
> To: Marvin Häuser ; edk2-
> de...@lists.01.org
> Cc: michael.d.kin...@intel.com; liming@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure safe bitwise
> oper
On 02/28/18 14:57, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/28/18 12:43, Marvin Häuser wrote:
>> +2) Binary operations (AND, OR, ...) should not raise any problems at
>> all (except for our fellow using VS2005x86 :) )
>
> Haha :) In earnest though, you are right.
Hm... It should not be a frequent pattern, bu
On 02/28/18 12:43, Marvin Häuser wrote:
> Actually, your explanations and the rest of the bit defines made me
> wonder, whether marking all BIT defines and bit masks of any kind,
> anywhere, as ULL, might be the best solution.
For a new project just being started, that could be one of the safest
e...@lists.01.org
> >> Cc: michael.d.kin...@intel.com; liming....@intel.com
> >> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure safe bitwise
> >> operations.
> >>
[...]
>
> This is exactly how I feel, yes. My concern is that making the cha
On 02/27/18 21:31, Marvin Häuser wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Laszlo Ersek
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:54 PM
>> To: Marvin Häuser ; edk2-
>> de...@lists.01.org
>> Cc: michael.d.kin...@intel.com; liming....@intel.com
>> Sub
ming@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg/Base.h: Ensure safe bitwise
> operations.
>
> On 02/27/18 17:47, Marvin Häuser wrote:
> > As per the C standard, bit-level operations on signed integers are
> > either undefined or implementation-defined. Hence, mark
On 02/27/18 17:47, Marvin Häuser wrote:
> As per the C standard, bit-level operations on signed integers are
> either undefined or implementation-defined. Hence, mark all BIT
> defines and shifts as unsigned to safely allow such operations.
Sigh, this is why threading is important in patch sets. :
17 matches
Mail list logo
