From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826411B7D6 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:27:00 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Apr 2018 10:26:59 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,427,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="45469486" Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.66]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2018 10:26:58 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.155]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.253]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:26:57 +0100 From: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Van Haaren, Harry" , Stephen Hemminger , "Singh, Jasvinder" , "Richardson, Bruce" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] table: fix build error with gcc 8 Thread-Index: AQHT0AFDvYx2RPzVvkK3GozvP95nyKP4eMUAgAAXc8CAAAFNgIAAEVwg///3dQCAABUvMA== Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 17:26:57 +0000 Message-ID: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891267BB3D47F@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20180409124948.130974-1-jasvinder.singh@intel.com> <20180409080936.58ecb66c@xeon-e3> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891267BB3D389@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891267BB3D42E@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258AE912640@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258AE912640@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.200.100 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] table: fix build error with gcc 8 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:27:00 -0000 > > > > If people think that this function conversion is not nice, it can be re= worked > in multiple ways at the expense of API (but not ABI) change: > > 1. Define the hash function field in the table parameter structure as > opaque void * rather than 4-parameter version. > > 2. Create a separate parameter structure just for this hash table type. >=20 > Why just not define your f_hash member as a union: >=20 > struct rte_table_hash_params { > ... > union { > rte_table_hash_op_hash f_hash_4params; > rte_hash_function f_hash_3_params; > }; >=20 > ? >=20 Yes, agreed, this is yet another way to handle this, thanks Konstantin.