Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v10 3/4] pipeline: Fix compilation error with gcc ASan

["Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peng, ZhihongX <zhihongx.peng@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:11 PM
> To: david.marchand@redhat.com; Burakov, Anatoly
> <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; stephen@networkplumber.org;
> Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lin, Xueqin <xueqin.lin@intel.com>; Peng, ZhihongX
> <zhihongx.peng@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [PATCH v10 3/4] pipeline: Fix compilation error with gcc ASan
> 
> From: Zhihong Peng <zhihongx.peng@intel.com>
> 
> The gcc will check code more stricter when ASan enabled.
> "Control reaches end of non-void function" error occurs here.
> 
> Fixes: f38913b7fb8e ("pipeline: add meter array to SWX")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xueqin Lin <xueqin.lin@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhihong Peng <zhihongx.peng@intel.com>
> ---
> v7: no change
> v8: no change
> v9: Modify the submit log
> v10:no change
> ---
>  lib/pipeline/rte_swx_pipeline.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/pipeline/rte_swx_pipeline.c b/lib/pipeline/rte_swx_pipeline.c
> index 1cd09a4b44..0acd6c6752 100644
> --- a/lib/pipeline/rte_swx_pipeline.c
> +++ b/lib/pipeline/rte_swx_pipeline.c
> @@ -4642,7 +4642,7 @@ instr_meter_translate(struct rte_swx_pipeline *p,
>  		return 0;
>  	}
> 
> -	CHECK(0, EINVAL);
> +	return -EINVAL;
>  }
> 
>  static inline void
> @@ -5937,7 +5937,7 @@ instr_translate(struct rte_swx_pipeline *p,
>  					      instr,
>  					      data);
> 
> -	CHECK(0, EINVAL);
> +	return -EINVAL;
>  }
> 
>  static struct instruction_data *
> --
> 2.25.1

NACK.

This is a false issue, no bug is here. CHECK(0, EINVAL) translates to an unconditional return -EINVAL.

Does this tool work correctly when macros are present? Maybe the tool should parse the preprocessed C code as opposed to initial C code?

Regards,
Cristian