From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B19BA04B7;
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:47:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC09D2142;
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:47:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF02DE3;
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:47:21 +0100 (CET)
X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN
X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51])
by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
11 Nov 2019 02:47:18 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,292,1569308400"; d="scan'208";a="207081454"
Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.46])
by orsmga006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA;
11 Nov 2019 02:47:15 -0800
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:47:12 +0000
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, david.marchand@redhat.com,
jerinj@marvell.com, Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, gavin.hu@arm.com,
joyce.kong@arm.com, nd@arm.com, stable@dpdk.org
Message-ID: <20191111104712.GB1444@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <1573468461-25972-1-git-send-email-phil.yang@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1573468461-25972-1-git-send-email-phil.yang@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] mk: fix unsupported flag error on armhf
architercture
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 06:34:20PM +0800, Phil Yang wrote:
> The older version (e.g. version 7.4.0 ) of GNU C compiler for the armhf
> architecture doesn't support the flag '-Wno-address-of-packed-member',
> so remove this flag for aarch32.
>
> Fixes: a385972c3675 ("mk: disable warning for packed member pointer")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu <gavin.hu@arm.com>
> Tested-by: Joyce Kong <joyce.kong@arm.com>
>
> ---
> mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.vars.mk | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.vars.mk b/mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.vars.mk
> index 9fc7041..ec0cbbf 100644
> --- a/mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.vars.mk
> +++ b/mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.vars.mk
> @@ -100,7 +100,9 @@ WERROR_FLAGS += -Wno-format-truncation
> endif
>
> # disable packed member unalign warnings
> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM), y)
> WERROR_FLAGS += -Wno-address-of-packed-member
> +endif
>
You don't need to do this, as gcc will not complain about this unknown flag
unless you have other issues in your code.[1] I think it's better to keep the
code clean in this case, otherwise we'll have the code littered with
conditionals for various flags.
/Bruce
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html
"When an unrecognized warning option is requested (e.g.,
-Wunknown-warning), GCC emits a diagnostic stating that the option is not
recognized. However, if the -Wno- form is used, the behavior is slightly
different: no diagnostic is produced for -Wno-unknown-warning unless other
diagnostics are being produced. This allows the use of new -Wno- options
with old compilers, but if something goes wrong, the compiler warns that an
unrecognized option is present."