Re: [dpdk-dev] error: value computed is not used

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2014-12-08 15:26, Wodkowski, PawelX:
> From: Qiu, Michael
> > On 2014/12/8 19:00, Wodkowski, PawelX wrote:
> > >> lib/librte_pmd_enic/enic_main.c: In function 'enic_set_rsskey':
> > >> lib/librte_pmd_enic/enic_main.c:862:2: error: value computed is not used
> > >>
> > >> I dig out that, it was ome issue of  the macros rte_memcpy()
> > >> #define rte_memcpy(dst, src, n)              \
> > >>         ((__builtin_constant_p(n)) ?          \
> > >>         memcpy((dst), (src), (n)) :          \
> > >>         rte_memcpy_func((dst), (src), (n)))
> > >>
> > >> When I use only (n) instead of (__builtin_constant_p(n), it will pass( I
> > >> know that it was incorrect, just a experiment).
> > >>
> > >> But I try to use inline function instead of macros:
> > >> static inline void * rte_memcpy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t n)
> > >> {
> > >>         return __builtin_constant_p(n) ? memcpy(dst, src, n) :
> > >>                                          rte_memcpy_func(dst, src, n);
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> It will pass:), and works, this could be one potential workaround fix.
> > >>
> > >> Who knows why? The root cause is what?
> > >>
> > >> I've no idea about this.
> > >>
> > > I got the same issue while ago. I don't remember exactly everything
> > > but my conclusion was that there was some bug in compiler. I think,
> > > when 'n' I constant and/or small compiler is inlining memcpy and throwing
> > > everything else (including returned value). In that case error is not
> > > produced (I think this is a bug in compiler). In other case it is computing
> > > some value calling memcpy or rte_ memcpy and you should at least
> > > explicitly throw it away by casting to void. I like solution with static
> > 
> > Actually, I try to pass "n" as a Int value like 4, it still report this
> > error :)
> 
> My workaround was:
> (void) rte_memcpy(...);
> 
> But this is only a workaround.

It's not so bad.

> > > inline but someone else should spoke about possible side effects.
> > 
> > Yes, but as I know inline is better than macros.

>From the GCC manual:
"
You may use this built-in function in either a macro or an inline function.
However, if you use it in an inlined function and pass an argument of the
function as the argument to the built-in, GCC never returns 1 when you call
the inline function with a string constant or compound literal and does not
return 1 when you pass a constant numeric value to the inline function unless
you specify the -O option.
"

It seems the "inline fix" cannot be used.

I'm going to send a patch with Pawel's workaround.

-- 
Thomas