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 ADCDDA04DB; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 14:52:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30EAC982; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 14:52:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-lf1-f54.google.com (mail-lf1-f54.google.com [209.85.167.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC56C956 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 14:52:40 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lf1-f54.google.com with SMTP id j205so4270737lfj.6 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 05:52:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zCSCl9E25lwg2yWuR48dZHc/kDk9iDivOMy2/iJzT9M=; b=EHGll4U/2v9rpOgp0U365MZhqBVxxLBJnlbfL8Lqztxdj/NNaUtqBB/25Ab3tEyVAE odyDHnFvC7w66TPvCdJY/w838DKJFF3BvHtDZwN3LzDSWgTw7HFdo/usycGZ0xpVxmcV xKllVmL8loFMQItSu19hh2HGzJkICESX9cUK49RAclZKN9g5jX5ctrYJaHZdsA0IQERX cTIY5nRvNxSa6JFhitbBb8cZ5X/+66yoH2w+Yewd3iWumO3R2jHgz30hqzMvZoqMFwaK VuB/28UYqRtIVROSM/waf3TC3dU/4sBAjhUF9wLfNA5+na3GfZNPVm8nBu3hX8o0vQqO JM3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zCSCl9E25lwg2yWuR48dZHc/kDk9iDivOMy2/iJzT9M=; b=QD9/IAnvJK9YX5SqKyAcAfBH82gRDne/nO5AHmDm1Zwkr7+wJcbvGz5oXN/hHizokT +8eeog45ca5KpDpuQifRUCVQkBD1LhrRrEtUEkSIigFTh2YtSj3KicsoSQLwnA+HFZ8v pntESuAmf0P29DMwkt8OaXK0yszcS7FM2MnK61oruGN9deVfEJx0b9F8KCD/ORIKzE3P 3A2LDh+Ny5Gzfn0SMepa3td3bOxWiMuNxIfKQGChdn3lKsvlws3pCs5KgXCjDP1ITrjY f8lh3PJ4ltAQPaehwKT0dOMeoBKkXJHTiCgJbZmp5GOtUfOoP6Pca7TkGFCrHlFHPKdJ xFdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ERRr/Xk3qJDgr5PMZ5qIOEQ9BHE5JDv0Bs1bnmW4UkJGTcVuM HI0zqCeKqHQAFEo+awS8VXk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7Hoih5rf3xR4y+VPsS6J8+ycbMqhfGscTLu5SOsScAFFQCmu2dwMxnQJsC8AG5dLnGefMAQ== X-Received: by 2002:a19:5015:: with SMTP id e21mr1148406lfb.566.1606830759358; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 05:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from sovereign (broadband-37-110-65-23.ip.moscow.rt.ru. [37.110.65.23]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j22sm210231lfr.6.2020.12.01.05.52.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 01 Dec 2020 05:52:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 16:52:36 +0300 From: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> Cc: nick.connolly@mayadata.io, navasile@linux.microsoft.com, dmitrym@microsoft.com, pallavi.kadam@intel.com, talshn@nvidia.com, dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20201201165236.64b6f97e@sovereign> In-Reply-To: <8094293.VoMytXdBYE@thomas> References: <8094293.VoMytXdBYE@thomas> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.6 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] build failure with MinGW GCC 10.2 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 Tue, 01 Dec 2020 14:18:53 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I'm hitting an issue with x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc (GCC) 10.2.0: > lib/librte_eal/windows/eal_memory.c:30:14: error: > redeclaration of =E2=80=98enum MEM_EXTENDED_PARAMETER_TYPE=E2=80=99 > and others: > redeclaration of enumerator =E2=80=98MemExtendedParameterInvalidType=E2= =80=99 > redeclaration of enumerator =E2=80=98MemExtendedParameterAddressRequirem= ents=E2=80=99 > redeclaration of enumerator =E2=80=98MemExtendedParameterNumaNode=E2=80= =99 > redeclaration of enumerator =E2=80=98MemExtendedParameterPartitionHandle= =E2=80=99 > redeclaration of enumerator =E2=80=98MemExtendedParameterUserPhysicalHan= dle=E2=80=99 > redeclaration of enumerator =E2=80=98MemExtendedParameterAttributeFlags= =E2=80=99 > redeclaration of enumerator =E2=80=98MemExtendedParameterMax=E2=80=99 > redefinition of =E2=80=98struct MEM_EXTENDED_PARAMETER=E2=80=99 > "MEM_EXTENDED_PARAMETER_TYPE_BITS" redefined >=20 > I see in the code it should be avoided: >=20 > /* MinGW-w64 headers lack VirtualAlloc2() in some distributions. > * Provide a copy of definitions and code to load it dynamically. > * Note: definitions are copied verbatim from Microsoft documentation > * and don't follow DPDK code style. > * > * MEM_RESERVE_PLACEHOLDER being defined means VirtualAlloc2() is present= too. > */ > #ifndef MEM_PRESERVE_PLACEHOLDER >=20 > Does it mean using this flag is not true anymore in recent MinGW? I think the #ifndef test is incorrect, maybe MEM_PRESERVE_PLACEHOLDER is not a macro in MinGW headers as it is in Windows SDK. What's your environment? I can't reproduce this with the latest MinGW-w64 8.0.0 for Windows from https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/, x86_64-win32-seh flavour (GCC 8.1.0), and neither with MinGW-w64 6.0.0 (9.3.0) on NixOS.