From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4842543BF1; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:43:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A59402B2; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:43:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51229402B2 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:43:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1086) id 5F04520B74C0; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:43:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 5F04520B74C0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1708969433; bh=jSKXHxQ5WOz6TagYloKJ5Kta/3su20WoqkBvcSu+gnM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Jld0Vn13acDvNqprNdiYTLAUEK5afIe9cVepQA7Szm791p1G3NFPw+GIQIIY4Pd2I uIn0ZkNR26jBefqyLk5xEckjsYN2arp7++b9BXhPazy+VBAY8MegN1OBHY7iBHbJiA Kvfknuu9qn33FnyVXrgUtSOaIcKxb0BSaRw6eOeA= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:43:53 -0800 From: Tyler Retzlaff To: Morten =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: RTE_MARKER with MSVC Message-ID: <20240226174353.GA23463@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> References: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F265@smartserver.smartshare.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9F265@smartserver.smartshare.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 12:16:58PM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > Hi Tyler, > > Does MSVC permit empty structures, i.e. structures with no fields? Perhaps with some additional decoration, a la [[msvc::no_unique_address]]. > If so, perhaps that would be a possible workaround for RTE_MARKERs. i had some pretty long conversations with one of the main msvc devs about this and they couldn't identify anything that they had that could be used. we didn't exhaustively dig through new versions of the standards but even if there was something there we probably couldn't use it while still baselined to C11. i know the inline accessors were not going to be a perfect solution either for the reason you raise on list. at this point i'm trying to find a happy medium to solve the problem where everyone doesn't end up too upset. even anonymous unions turn out to be an imperfect solution because there's a corner case they can't cover where the union ends up with a field that is a FAM. i even asked if they could just support similar as an extension but they were pretty firm no. at this point unless enhancements are absolute need i am not likely to get large investments from msvc (for now). i've spent an enormous amount of their resources in the last couple of years for dpdk and they want to see some customers using dpdk before they are able to commit more. fortunately i think we have enough now to at least get customers using dpdk without significant compromises (assuming i can ever get all my changes upstream). also in case i haven't said it lately, i appreciate all the review and input you've given it really helps a lot. ty > > > Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards, > -Morten Brørup >