From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.903.1678730073148623767 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:54:33 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="signature has expired" header.i=@bsdio.com header.s=fm3 header.b=PajsiA8/; spf=pass (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 66.111.4.27, mailfrom: rebecca@bsdio.com) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657515C01F5; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 13:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 13 Mar 2023 13:54:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdio.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date:date :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t= 1678730072; x=1678816472; bh=lRTpN38dQ3tw/7NXHZ8GDb/Tg52rdeIGLto zB/m1EWI=; b=PajsiA8/3k0NDuzjcAYqoDckZSyLZAD2iSncN5XKxefaDcN3DVz b5Hg2PfWHdbQNzAUrw4r/rUED3OAQC+vv5eZq95abSa8ERV1BlyAPbF68Yoz9DJ5 EfMlbzxa81BHzCK9TMHQXv8c2C+8CkJMGJUe2CpmWpCTL29tcTn7uqjm3xKv0CRv S6ub0ieAlnps971rTa9DeFfQ2ZD1CM6fcfv2b2WPDEfOa2VWkauSlTGcV8NncgS7 RqS+BvfRJfx34nLZ7CSi09WEJBwiOoUVTSUn5GYeeMYp9j+/2b/tpKF0ksPyJzYy JTSoe1F7veV8rWt0lTrsaw5dSiqvpe7ulKw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1678730072; x= 1678816472; bh=lRTpN38dQ3tw/7NXHZ8GDb/Tg52rdeIGLtozB/m1EWI=; b=W SP1op+AeO43/CCJKIqxqPtbyqd/x7HfnO9Yl1fhMFJUFqk5muv4GFJi+hnC1/UYD JoLes9LP/WvYtu/IM6+mOCderr2XFnKLbDR7x9cNv1jTgllGDXxJXGb/mVwbysSa zgR/RnuIr2CLJLEH/zuEvelOMGh1V9sKjtoUAeBXarF5x0O2x0lD6g13YfviZItE oYktlVaXDEb2scp6PEPqzWtmjtsiSvFEC5bPdXilcjodVaptPrxjHEbGWu6GEdG4 dpsifq9Gn3A8GatVAcuXwUy9StxnFX2wI8aWV3nC/C3wlTWm2nbKtp/+3T8df4TZ iTDKFF5xGwWVb+m0UDgEQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvddvgedguddtgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeftvggs vggttggrucevrhgrnhcuoehrvggsvggttggrsegsshguihhordgtohhmqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeekieekieeufffhteehueeutedvgfeffefggfeiueejvdfhveefffdtiefh teetudenucffohhmrghinhepghhrohhuphhsrdhiohenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehrvggsvggttggrsegsshguihhordgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i5b994698:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 13:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2f115d2c-1369-e678-a7f2-572698fbacff@bsdio.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:54:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IOWbnuWkjTogW2VkazItZGV2ZWxdIFtQQVRDSCAxLzJdIE1kZVBrZzogVXBkYXRlIEJhc2UuaCB0byBiZSBjb21wbGlhbnQgd2l0aCBDMTE=?= To: devel@edk2.groups.io, gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn, 'Michael D Kinney' , 'Zhiguang Liu' References: <20230209154507.81877-1-rebecca@quicinc.com> <3fad4aa0-9bdb-715f-7b81-3f16b30be68e@bsdio.com> <009601d952fa$5a1fb7b0$0e5f2710$@byosoft.com.cn> From: "Rebecca Cran" In-Reply-To: <009601d952fa$5a1fb7b0$0e5f2710$@byosoft.com.cn> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I know I have access to the Github tianocore project and can push to the edk2-libc repo, but I've been assuming that I'm not allowed to push to the edk2 repo. Is that correct, or can I go ahead and push this and any other patches that get reviewed? -- Rebecca Cran On 3/9/23 7:45 PM, gaoliming via groups.io wrote: > Rebecca: > This patch pass code review. It can be merged now. The second change to using __func__ is only for MdePkg. Do you expect the change in MdePkg is first merged? > > Thanks > Liming >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Rebecca Cran >> 发送时间: 2023年3月7日 0:39 >> 收件人: devel@edk2.groups.io; quic_rcran@quicinc.com; Michael D Kinney >> ; Liming Gao ; >> Zhiguang Liu >> 主题: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] MdePkg: Update Base.h to be compliant >> with C11 >> >> Now that edk2-stable202302 has been released, I'd like to get this patch >> series committed. >> >> >> -- >> Rebecca Cran >> >> >> On 2/9/23 8:45 AM, Rebecca Cran wrote: >>> With the introduction of the use of _Static_assert, edk2 requires a C11 >>> compatible compiler. Update Include/Base.h to be compliant with C11. >>> >>> As of C11, the maximum type of an enum is type `int`. Since the UEFI >>> Specification 2.3.1 Errata C allows either `int` or `unsigned int`, fix >>> the 32-bit enum check to use a signed int. >>> >>> Since the UEFI 2.3 Specification only allowed signed int, update the >>> comment to reference 2.3.1 Errata C where the change was made to allow >>> unsigned int. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rebecca Cran >>> --- >>> MdePkg/Include/Base.h | 12 ++++++------ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/Base.h b/MdePkg/Include/Base.h >>> index d209e6de280a..e89c84962ab2 100644 >>> --- a/MdePkg/Include/Base.h >>> +++ b/MdePkg/Include/Base.h >>> @@ -796,9 +796,9 @@ STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (L"A") == 4, "sizeof >> (L\"A\") does not meet UEFI Specif >>> // >>> // The following three enum types are used to verify that the compiler >>> // configuration for enum types is compliant with Section 2.3.1 of the >>> -// UEFI 2.3 Specification. These enum types and enum values are not >>> -// intended to be used. A prefix of '__' is used avoid conflicts with >>> -// other types. >>> +// UEFI 2.3.1 Errata C Specification. These enum types and enum values >>> +// are not intended to be used. A prefix of '__' is used avoid >>> +// conflicts with other types. >>> // >>> typedef enum { >>> __VerifyUint8EnumValue = 0xff >>> @@ -809,12 +809,12 @@ typedef enum { >>> } __VERIFY_UINT16_ENUM_SIZE; >>> >>> typedef enum { >>> - __VerifyUint32EnumValue = 0xffffffff >>> -} __VERIFY_UINT32_ENUM_SIZE; >>> + __VerifyInt32EnumValue = 0x7fffffff >>> +} __VERIFY_INT32_ENUM_SIZE; >>> >>> STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (__VERIFY_UINT8_ENUM_SIZE) == 4, "Size of >> enum does not meet UEFI Specification Data Type requirements"); >>> STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (__VERIFY_UINT16_ENUM_SIZE) == 4, "Size of >> enum does not meet UEFI Specification Data Type requirements"); >>> -STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (__VERIFY_UINT32_ENUM_SIZE) == 4, "Size of >> enum does not meet UEFI Specification Data Type requirements"); >>> +STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (__VERIFY_INT32_ENUM_SIZE) == 4, "Size of enum >> does not meet UEFI Specification Data Type requirements"); >>> /** >>> Macro that returns a pointer to the data structure that contains a >> specified field of > > > > > >