Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] bitset: fix build for GCC without experimental API

["Mattias Rönnblom" <hofors@lysator.liu.se>]

On 2024-10-16 17:36, David Marchand wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 4:14 PM Mattias Rönnblom <hofors@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-10-16 13:38, David Marchand wrote:
>>> For a reason similar to the change on bitops header, hide bitset
>>> implementation relying on experimental API.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 99a1197647d8 ("eal: add bitset type")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
>>> Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
>>> ---
>>>    lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 123 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h b/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
>>> index 74c643a72a..8ae8425fc2 100644
>>> --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
>>> +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
>>> @@ -255,7 +255,13 @@ __rte_experimental
>>>    static inline bool
>>>    rte_bitset_test(const uint64_t *bitset, size_t bit_num)
>>>    {
>>> +#ifdef ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API
>>>        return __RTE_BITSET_DELEGATE(rte_bit_test, bitset, bit_num);
>>> +#else
>>> +     RTE_SET_USED(bitset);
>>> +     RTE_SET_USED(bit_num);
>>> +     return false;
>>
>> This is no RTE_VERIFY(0) here, because this is just dummy code, that
>> will never be run. Is that correct?
> 
> Adding a RTE_VERIFY(false) is an interesting idea.
> It is not supposed to be run, indeed.
> 
> Do you prefer I respin with this?
> 
> 

I reminded myself how ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_APIs works. This code may 
indeed be run. Experimental just generates a compiler warning.

So RTE_VERIFY(0); is needed. You should be able to remove the "return 
false;" statement.