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

[David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>]

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?


-- 
David Marchand