From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD8CA0547; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 20:13:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16CBD41108; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 20:13:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C62410D7 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 20:13:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC075C0601; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 14:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 18 Apr 2021 14:13:54 -0400 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=fm1; bh= 4PfYF4qSAd7iGibeagQUb8bNx07btpp5FRmxs2hkQYM=; b=trqzEPZDTiqSJbZ5 ObjxCRceDPcSBboIQRTYglRa2TldExOrLYyDyyVUi70Dg6ezOpiL9z16vmE85bZx M2jkUb21bzmSnA++R4cxbH90DTkpe+G7cQ7lL6Y7/QMIGaoMhHPgxIw4VkT/z7sU 981OM3WizZUVYPkHqyGKpndm1y1YQ31yY6ygxo+rVvxM4GE929bXil8C25z+XcSn 8osERsDRemrs9ZYJ+YBg/5589EZXjrbMED7FUNyM6e0EIKiQeUyI3gDFtKL+Jxsh wJPIe+9qTue84C01qhpcCuvAV3HPb8ez25C3JsN5LyTY4s29S1sdQKiq2Pq7j9rf nUVP1Q== 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=fm2; bh=4PfYF4qSAd7iGibeagQUb8bNx07btpp5FRmxs2hkQ YM=; b=r0pjJTo27iaCOGGIem9Mk1goMvN7/q5glabM/kv6KJp15vanZVQmhnbxs MBnU7Gyz6O4AScJz9HkaCReHWW6t5ISpLubUqn4yCiLyIRqYi/ixD5KfkfAxgACR sZQQEHX4I1U0jx5/9bXxAvYSDhtnZH4WrwXwkxSK+Hc9GbJ0X+Nx3OW6/SVd/Yld R5vew+j44pO4PIL3Xgv+20I+4BCQbLivFEQ8wjalYOGqrdmy/McDoxQpo5QRVez5 /g3A4kL+4EZPFwTyhksapshUhU9jG4HvVCMwHtMdD28e7ga2mh1PRDIxMF+aa73H rwLLCyHqq/HPsYBlMVC+pq9JiiPXA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddtuddgfedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght 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 7090D24005A; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 14:13:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Tal Shnaiderman Cc: dev@dpdk.org, pallavi.kadam@intel.com, dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com, navasile@linux.microsoft.com, dmitrym@microsoft.com Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 20:13:51 +0200 Message-ID: <2018619.JnGxiWPmQR@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20210418170803.15684-1-talshn@nvidia.com> References: <20210418170803.15684-1-talshn@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/windows: fix build warnings in MinGW X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 18/04/2021 19:08, Tal Shnaiderman: > the strncasecmp marco defined in rte_os_shim.h is already > defined in MinGW-w64, as a result the compiler prints out > the warning below on function redefinition whenever compiling > a file including the header. > > ..\lib/librte_eal/windows/include/rte_os_shim.h:21: > warning: "strncasecmp" redefined > #define strncasecmp(s1, s2, count) _strnicmp(s1, s2, count) Why the tests are passing? Are we allowing warnings in build test? > Fixed by defining the marco only to the clang compiler. That's a very common typo: s/marco/macro/