From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5DD2A04C4 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:18:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FD02142; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:18:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2028723D; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:18:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73AF421249; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:18:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=YSgBcjpoSLgMdAlUyL2mXDi3/VgOEYzPP17ac+LZliI=; b=sXDbVIDvl4kz VwOuecttf4A0QAdRnwznmVi17v9EpOSGcXfd5DrWJcB/D7gUefmZpNs0IpuXkAZ6 Uhh64mEm3qTbwetHYOiKELsk1Rtl0AEFt/JidxDNiWGWvR4zXmPvjP60ryldWiDv 1FgxXDRnwTXHqx0zh8iyDLRfcHkXxZk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=YSgBcjpoSLgMdAlUyL2mXDi3/VgOEYzPP17ac+LZl iI=; b=HjY7v96MrRguhwTAgoV0DIsaC4GcegChE3FGAEKyrua1c+SVpHm1cz3i9 t6E2zCmowj9vsewOqm7KMYXYAEg9cdvRQpgVRns8s4Mn0ilRqUyhtPMCZ/iN83vC G2QOGcPr5WK55n72Yvwa1EUYrweAYlyF4V36+UxaALlpOdazdI4y6Z5xIhqSxGj6 ag4gUHbZ5ktofXPQVmJzDnsxCFSDUX/GTVbnzi8Yhp4qNp4EibpJY/QN/JSQ85rU DTWOCnGmlA+98mzTXRQR7BCha3Vmegk0bzPTad+8XXO0SAT9jWbzIsD97unTAB8J FcxUzsOJv0je65gk62xFGl8hH0yOw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudehtddgudeivdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ffohhmrghinhephhhurghrmhdrtghomhenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeeg necurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvg htnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0AAB13060060; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:18:52 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Gavin Hu , Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, Steve Capper Cc: stable@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, nd@arm.com, david.marchand@redhat.com Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:18:51 +0100 Message-ID: <2954535.brShQIuEvG@xps> In-Reply-To: <1573450911-24317-2-git-send-email-gavin.hu@arm.com> References: <1573450911-24317-1-git-send-email-gavin.hu@arm.com> <1573450911-24317-2-git-send-email-gavin.hu@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 1/3] test/rcu: fix the compiling error for armv8.2 X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" 11/11/2019 06:41, Gavin Hu: > With "-march=3Darmv8.2-a" specified, a compiling error generated: > app/test/test_rcu_qsbr.c:234:10: error: comparison of integer > expressions of different signedness: =E2=80=98unsigned int=E2=80=99 and = =E2=80=98int=E2=80=99 > [-Werror=3Dsign-compare] >=20 > Fixes: b87089b0bb19 ("test/rcu: add API and functional tests") > Cc: stable@dpdk.org >=20 > Signed-off-by: Gavin Hu > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli > Reviewed-by: Steve Capper > --- > --- a/app/test/test_rcu_qsbr.c > +++ b/app/test/test_rcu_qsbr.c > /* Skip one update */ > - if (i =3D=3D (RTE_MAX_LCORE - 10)) > + if (i =3D=3D (unsigned int)(RTE_MAX_LCORE - 10)) =46or N1 SDP, RTE_MAX_LCORE =3D 4. So this test weird. Why not using rand() to find a number between 0 and max ? You are hiding a real failure with a forced type casting. Please reviewers, explain why you think it is the right thing to do?