RE: [PATCH] eal: provide rte attribute macro for GCC attribute

["Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>]

> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Sunday, 18 February 2024 16.35
> 
> 18/02/2024 13:53, Morten Brørup:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > > Sent: Sunday, 18 February 2024 13.24
> > >
> > > 15/02/2024 23:20, Tyler Retzlaff:
> > > > Provide a new macro __rte_attribute(a) that when directly used
> > > > compiles to empty for MSVC and to __attribute__(a) when using
> > > GCC/LLVM.
> > > >
> > > > Replace direct use of __attribute__ in __rte_xxx macros where
> there
> > > is
> > > > existing empty expansion of the macro for MSVC allowing removal
> of
> > > > repeated #ifdef RTE_TOOLCHAIN_MSVC per macro to expand empty.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure it makes sense.
> > > I prefer seeing clearly what is empty with MSVC.
> >
> > This topic has previously been discussed in another context - adding
> external libraries [1].
> >
> > Like you do here, I generally preferred #ifdefs in the code, but the
> majority preferred stubs "promoting improved code readability".
> 
> Stubs may make sense in many places,
> but here we are talking about rte_common.h
> where we abstract differences between arch and compilers,
> so it is the right place to be explicit with compilers support.

Very strong point. I'm convinced.

Should the new rte_attribute() macro still be introduced for other uses of __attribute__(), e.g. the somewhat exotic attributes in eal/include/rte_lock_annotations.h?

The not-so-exotic attributes could have new macros added, e.g. __rte_const and __rte_pure.

> 
> > I might argue that Tyler is following that guidance here; and perhaps
> the decision should be reconsidered, now that we have a real-life
> example of how it affects code readability. ;-)
> >
> > [1]: https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20240109141009.497807-1-
> jerinj@marvell.com/
> 
>