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 902FAA00C4; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:10:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 859E541140; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:10:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DC940E5A for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:10:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F223200933; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 03:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 29 Sep 2022 03:10:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=fm2; t=1664435401; x= 1664521801; bh=YJl8yygHQkqN2e6ddHqZqIfdzK50VCTLFtVuARcynu0=; b=e CwvxDc8GFtx3nZ6Prqp/DMbEvNaNy3AOIrZzD2NSyWWUcG3y+clZbN3I+6QdWvar lxkujTUWnXwaogsL3xuZx5nbJZ/AhLDLKjqyq89MqL4lyIwG+5eY0/Eik42juUM2 HtGvK26SpZdqtznDiedAGOeILISHXEH+oQi9qvZ+HgJEQvJC51KFis75rN2tsu4t AoPmbyk2nwOl+tyofoGZh+4mGzjoUqHwcr060SSr4HzmPCbs44UYgnsgV64Y4qQd IR427Xty7Medbqm2KxXVQ5b3aGJ76kV4G/6xREUqdbTETDwsALQSpNtnrJOBI/Fj L9n/yAnTKKWJ+Wj7jqjqg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :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=1664435401; x= 1664521801; bh=YJl8yygHQkqN2e6ddHqZqIfdzK50VCTLFtVuARcynu0=; b=d MaDv2HAskyhHRFawCXhJpd51HTerlMRg8jr3x8OYZsCwNt3FlPd05bgyZUdqwDCP Xoba8h46n1BvjcZ6cvVDREjMKPjXV0RSzMK7A+eE5S0sUDkXCi1EVKBx1Y5f0njM pL07nSNExq5cg54hPInCy8V5Wf21YJvOZ5t+c8wt1jREAkmzjs5asM9Kzs7yJLBh iwiTUyvYifCEOHQZbiVKE3aCNff+/WKck0uPugyQ5v8mGs0+hLxO/0aiKMsMy1aC vIPG8GogksYl21x89IN8Rpjt2zELnz/SXc7sp1Jd8djZXEdEKOgSyYMMgmdy73Lq 0hyTh429dbRvVnLokAR2w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeegledgudduiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhho mhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdejieeifeehtdffgfdvleetueeffeehueejgfeuteeftddt ieekgfekudehtdfgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 03:10:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ali Alnubani , Akhil Goyal Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [EXT] [PATCH] net: fix build with -Wpedantic Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:09:59 +0200 Message-ID: <3741631.FjKLVJYuhi@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220929065006.832858-1-alialnu@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 29/09/2022 09:01, Akhil Goyal: > > Adds the __extension__ attribute to resolve the following warning > > with gcc 4.8.5 on CentOS 7: > > lib/net/rte_macsec.h:38:2: error: type of bit-field 'short_length' is > > a GCC extension [-Werror=pedantic] > > > > Fixes: 0aaf097585a6 ("ethdev: add MACsec flow item") > > Cc: gakhil@marvell.com > > > > Signed-off-by: Ali Alnubani > > --- > > --- a/lib/net/rte_macsec.h > > +++ b/lib/net/rte_macsec.h > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ extern "C" { > > /** > > * MACsec Header (SecTAG) > > */ > > +__extension__ > > RTE_STD_C11 ?? We use RTE_STD_C11 only for anonymous struct and union. I don't know why we don't use it for bitfield in struct. It seems to be part of C11 standard, right? In doubt, I would continue with __extension__ and we can replace all similar occurences in a separate patch, if confirmed it is well defined in C11.