Re: [dpdk-dev] Using _XOPEN_SOURCE macros may break builds on FreeBSD

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

Hi Adrien,

> 
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 09:51:24AM +0000, Smoczynski, MarcinX wrote:
> > 10/05/2019 20:17, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > 10/05/2019 19:14, Smoczynski, MarcinX:
> > > > To summarize we have different visibility sets for Linux and BSD
> > > > when using XOPEN_SOURCE or POSIX_C_SOURCE explicitly. To overcome
> > > > this situation we can either remove problematic XOPEN macros from
> > > > mk/meson rules (drivers/net/failsafe, drivers/net/mlx4,
> > > > drivers/net/mlx5)
> > >
> > > What is the consequence of removing these macros in mlx and failsafe PMDs?
> >
> > The purpose of these *_SOURCE constants is to enable particular feature sets
> > visibility. As long as we have GNU_SOURCE on Linux removing it won't have any
> > consequences. On BSD it will unify feature sets visibility with the rest of
> > sources. Can't think of any downsides here.
> >
> > I believe XOPEN_SOURCE was introduced to extend features not to restrict them.
> 
> I confirm that under Linux, all IPPROTO_* (POSIX/XOPEN/RFC1700) are defined
> regardless (_GNU_SOURCE not even needed), while under FreeBSD, the non-POSIX
> versions are only defined when __BSD_VISIBLE is set.
> 
> The FreeBSD behavior is more correct in this respect since the purpose of
> _XOPEN_SOURCE and friends is also to let applications limit the risk of
> redefinitions in case they were written for an earlier standard
> (e.g. -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 vs. -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600).

Still not sure why do you need it for failsafe and mlx PMDs?
Would something in these PMDs be broken without  '-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600'?

> 
> DPDK applications may also define _XOPEN_SOURCE for their own needs. They
> should still be able to use rte_ip.h afterward.

I suppose they can, they would just have (on FreeBSD) to add '-D __BSD_VISIBLE'
themselves. 

> I think this reason is
> enough to go with -D__BSD_VISIBLE under FreeBSD without removing
> _XOPEN_SOURCE, as it should work regardless.

So do you suggest to add '-D __BSD_VISIBLE'  into
mlx/failsafe PMDs Makefiles/meson.build, or ... ?
 
> Looking at the patch [1], I also think there's another, simpler approach:
> unless really performance critical, defining rte_ipv6_get_next_ext() in
> rte_net.c instead of a static inline in rte_ip.h should address this issue.

It is performance critical, and I think that 
function call for each ext header is a way too expensive approach.
Will prefer to keep that function inline.

Konstantin