From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890E1A04B5; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:12:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256D81BF83; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:12:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com (new1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.221]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9AE1BF73 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:12:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287C55F40; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 04:12:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 Dec 2019 04:12:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=qCYYtqry2TGKWUjFcf9KW2kDbwgcrlLDWnhBPxM0fFA=; b=Crh86Z/YYgTB /zQFi3f41woyiACn+SyPFlxgj87/FmVdnjS+YyjxbD8xfFkrFGzf/wXkb/MirBzq REisdZt8g0CCdzLxBk4H1RKX18w3eNxHZwL4zVgIc2k/YbgsPWh4weN/4JYHjU++ X21dgbPmcywYckiLdZM8Jy4D71OVRro= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=qCYYtqry2TGKWUjFcf9KW2kDbwgcrlLDWnhBPxM0f FA=; b=EGO1tvqg1t9HQNQMdV1XOqFphqaMfQA8bh2Fg7tJXTa9S5gb9T2fxvRBM za7UVgZow5X3ZT2zgPARPf2/vaA2Zn2qL/nFOqCiuQ4U6oYYNe5V6Blmgr28lPFx Wk/XL+Gqi7ftPNVhzrtZc7aJ1NA0FQCS4rj93KM8WtksyPEFRIi8R1aoLY7f4bXA 2t/DcjXgKsYdPwnys2alMYSRnnAhIHuJ6HMOYLZF9nZDqb+AF9ingN976hHm9Tv3 0vz2Qp6KlOaZshYEx+7CYM8bTh2LJ+sr3S7tY3u5F2qJawf0bdGF2TGdw9grrshg b5qSM6xKpGwYDsNevGhH0zoMPZQ/A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudejhedgtdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 521F230600D2; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 04:12:30 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" Cc: "Joyce Kong (Arm Technology China)" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , Bruce Richardson , Morten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= , nd , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , Honnappa Nagarahalli , "ravi1.kumar@amd.com" , "rmody@marvell.com" , "shshaikh@marvell.com" , "xuanziyang2@huawei.com" , "cloud.wangxiaoyun@huawei.com" , "zhouguoyang@huawei.com" Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:12:28 +0100 Message-ID: <3338244.xi9Rne9xir@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1571125801-45773-1-git-send-email-joyce.kong@arm.com> <1574923458-14895-4-git-send-email-joyce.kong@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/6] net/axgbe: use common rte bit operation APIs instead X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 02/12/2019 07:09, Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China): > Hi Bruce, Thomas, > > This series of patches was reported a compilation issue[1] on 32bit Ubuntu. > On mainstream 64-bit OS, "unsigned long" is 64-bit in size and we uses the 64-bit variant of APIs. But the 32-bit OS expect 32-bit 'unsigned long' arguments. > This is where the error happens. Please could you be more specific? What is the exact error? > My question is how 32-bit OSes shall we support, put another way, can we ignore this compilation issue? > If we still need to care, how about making 'obsolete' of 'unsigned long' and use 'uint32' instead to be multi-OS friendly? Which unsigned long? If it is in the (not merged) bit API, it can still be changed no?