Re: [PATCH 00/21] replace strtok with strtok_r

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

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 4:33 AM Jie Hai <haijie1@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023/11/15 23:08, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:27:37 +0100
> > Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> just a final follow up, i can see that we already have a rte_strerror
> >>>> here to do the replace with reentrant dance. it is probably good to
> >>>> follow the already established pattern for this and have a
> >>> rte_strtok.
> >>>
> >>> +1 for have rte_strtok which could cover different platform.
> >>
> >> +1 to rte_strtok doing the reentrant dance for us.
> >>
> >> If we had such an rte_strtok(), we could also generally disallow the use of strtok().
> >
> > Good idea, I like this.
> > Would be good to have a version on Windows as well.
> >
> > .
> Hi, all maintainers,
>
> Since the map of strtok_r to strtok_s with three patramaters has
> been done in "rte_os_shim.h", I just include this file.
> And the rte_strtok is defined as below.
> My question is whether the
> "strtok_s(s, stringlen, delim, save_ptr)" and
> "strtok_s(str, delim, saveptr)" are compatible for C11.
>
> And I check the glibc codes here,
> https://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git
> there is no definition of strtok_s, is strtok_s not in use?
>
> If so, should we delayed processing for the C11 standard strtok_s
> function? That is, delete the "#ifdef __STDC_LIB_EXT1__...
> #endif" part, but keep the extension of the four parameters for later
> use. Or keep the following change but never use stringlen as not null
> until the function can be used.
>
> What do you think?

Regardless of how it is done internally, I would not inline this helper.
This will minimise headaches with checks against toolchain/compiler
support in a DPDK header.


-- 
David Marchand