Removing rules for Ipf sources file:
* Remove the source file which path with "ipf" and also listed in
[Sources.IPF] section of INF file.
* Remove the source file which listed in [Components.IPF] section
of DSC file and not listed in any other [Components] section.
* Remove the embedded Ipf code for MDE_CPU_IPF.
Removing rules for Inf file:
* Remove IPF from VALID_ARCHITECTURES comments.
* Remove DXE_SAL_DRIVER from LIBRARY_CLASS in [Defines] section.
* Remove the INF which only listed in [Components.IPF] section in DSC.
* Remove statements from [BuildOptions] that provide IPF specific flags.
* Remove any IPF sepcific sections.
Removing rules for Dec file:
* Remove [Includes.IPF] section from Dec.
Removing rules for Dsc file:
* Remove IPF from SUPPORTED_ARCHITECTURES in [Defines] section of DSC.
* Remove any IPF specific sections.
* Remove statements from [BuildOptions] that provide IPF specific flags.
Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
Signed-off-by: Chen A Chen <chen.a.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
1. Do not use tab characters
2. No trailing white space in one line
3. All files must end with CRLF
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
Signed-off-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
According to UEFI spec, the RouteConfig protocol function should populate
the Progress pointer with an address inside Configuration. This patch
ensures that these functions are compliant when EFI_NOT_FOUND is returned.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
Signed-off-by: Thomas Palmer <thomas.palmer@hpe.com>
Reviewed-by: Dandan Bi <dandan.bi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
Our new performance infrastructure (edk2 trunk commit hash value:
SHA-1: 73fef64f14 ~
SHA-1: 115eae650b) can support to
dump performance date form ACPI table in OS. So we can remove
the old perf code to write performance data to OS.
Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
Signed-off-by: Dandan Bi <dandan.bi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
V2:
Fix MSFT C4255 warning
V1:
Enable MSFT C4255 warning.
From MSDN:
Compiler Warning (level 4) C4255
function' : no function prototype given: converting '()' to '(void)'
The compiler did not find an explicit list of arguments to a function.
This warning is for the C compiler only.
Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.song@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
mLegacyBootOptionPrivate pointer is initialized in Constructor function
with if condition check, but it's used in Destructor function directly
without any check. Now add the NULL pointer check.
Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Dandan Bi <dandan.bi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
UINT8 *Ptr1, *Ptr2;
UINTN PtrDiff;
...
PtrDiff = (UINTN) (Ptr1 - Ptr2);
The commit will refine the pointer subtraction expressions by casting each
pointer to UINTN first and then perform the subtraction:
PtrDiff = (UINTN) Ptr1 - (UINTN) Ptr2;
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
The LegacyBootMaintUiLib depends on the LegacyBootManagerLib to realize its
functionality, the LegacyBootManagerLib may initialize after
LegacyBootMaintUiLib, so the functionality of LegacyBootMaintUiLib may
be incorrect. Now we fix this issue by executing the related codes when
opening the legacy forminstead in its the constructor function. Because
when opening the legacy form, the LegacyBootManagerLib must have been
initialized.
Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Dandan Bi <dandan.bi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Add gPerformanceProtocolGuid in BdsDxe.inf explicitly.
Currently, BdsDxe could build pass as it inherits
gPerformanceProtocolGuid from GenericBdsLib.inf.
Also update the usage of gPerformanceProtocolGuid in GenericBdsLib.inf.
Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
Remove the ASSERT code that may be triggered in LegacyBootMaintUiLib.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Dandan Bi <dandan.bi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
If the assert happens in a library, then it's hard to determine which module
using that library is generating that assert. Use gEfiCallerBaseName in
DebugAssert to display the module name.
In V2: Updated patch to use CopyMem instead of AsciiSPrint.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Baraneedharan Anbazhagan <anbazhagan@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>
git-svn-id: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2@19129 6f19259b-4bc3-4df7-8a09-765794883524
Liming Gao
chenc2
Thomas Palmer
Dandan Bi
Michael D Kinney
Song, BinX
Andrew Fish
Hao Wu
Jiewen Yao
Laszlo Ersek
Gary Lin
Star Zeng
Jordan Justen
Baraneedharan Anbazhagan