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 AF4934330E; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 13:04:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D26C4026B; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 13:04:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584604021E for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 13:04:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C43320069B; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 07:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 12 Nov 2023 07:04:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type: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=fm3; t= 1699790671; x=1699877071; bh=qzFrgbDVRMtwMeZ5Cotyd7lVLHkzcr7lUb1 cq3oupBY=; b=t+Zj5hLPwnxHOkg3UVmgmGolWW/6SlnqhVzt4xI2kscMf6DpBlZ jHOUousnzVjRYNB88+yo5Lxbj7PphvyUtBw3zYgnHmxD08ero+CoYU6MOia+RpNM 0KQMPFF/GmRevaUoqDRlXF3Ec/hAX1vrhXixHD06wkpWYeXDXxNcawsOwZt6MfDi SR9UsW8GRirD3i9GpyrOeYMnPBstVwJqBjyYurTrEy7GSngsBl/Hrua6fNs8tIvc mqwAkK1bZvDkHdgb0xg8Er0+pglGZPZUSHMBZQZc8aYF9tWfQLrmGHtnE6SBLnKy L/CiJoQ0X1avFM5JstJ7w+9bWHsZRdCawDg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type: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=fm3; t= 1699790671; x=1699877071; bh=qzFrgbDVRMtwMeZ5Cotyd7lVLHkzcr7lUb1 cq3oupBY=; b=Lap093ibBy8r7mjJUmiWeWut1PEH8cW12G61cKW9TP3Hg7rwGXA 6C74vkKcyTYonM+X0UqHLSQiNaAP9pYHNQHYl/56kIsUDiKCxGKPuqoYHwNm/ENe vVyCAi30lEKmAUS4w0W7D0koitFB9ez9qhV0BajOd60CdBDasYDZxAqTAtUv+CX9 w9DU+b8hehSN2NDzTvYp4goE2aLGN0R+dbyiwx/yArLFI6nv4ZNIWMSbo68ZfQFD vehp9kCfcGOmgqFIgNzDhkr5oGFRdL9OQPb+Nr7BASbX16TZ+WGi2jCtyEDmJIi9 nGS521EmZUhuTAFuPgAbML93KOXZsZrBo8g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedruddvkedgfeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtjeeiieefhedtfffgvdelteeufeefheeujefgueetfedttdei kefgkeduhedtgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 07:04:29 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Tyler Retzlaff Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Jerin Jacob , Sunil Kumar Kori , david.marchand@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: provide trace point register macro for MSVC Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 13:04:28 +0100 Message-ID: <4522485.LvFx2qVVIh@thomas> In-Reply-To: <1698878822-17099-1-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> References: <1698878822-17099-1-git-send-email-roretzla@linux.microsoft.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 01/11/2023 23:47, Tyler Retzlaff: > Provide an alternate RTE_TRACE_POINT_REGISTER macro when building with > MSVC that allocates segments for the trace point using MSVC specific > features > > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff > --- > +#ifdef RTE_TOOLCHAIN_MSVC > +#define RTE_TRACE_POINT_REGISTER(trace, name) \ > +rte_trace_point_t \ > +__pragma(data_seg("__rte_trace_point")) \ > +__declspec(allocate("__rte_trace_point")) \ > +__##trace; \ You could indent lines which are part of the define. > +static const char __##trace##_name[] = RTE_STR(name); \ > +RTE_INIT(trace##_init) \ > +{ \ > + __rte_trace_point_register(&__##trace, __##trace##_name, \ > + (void (*)(void)) trace); \ > +} This part is common to both implementation. It would be clearer to define a private macro for the trace point allocation which is what differs, so it can be reused in a single common macro.