From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1BFEA0553; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:29:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3D21DA9E; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:29:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3971DA11 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:29:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46FAE21FE6; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:29:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:29:54 -0500 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=mesmtp; bh=MWG0a1mhMLJ87/guinyPupCSZSNAY7bfFycFBqwuFys=; b=ccDinFOquFat nzqY2df8DCDVq6WbY49HutRZKmv0Vfnt6PLv8TlI00te1ED1qkTfu/3Dk6E4VOaQ AGPq7vB6Zkq/5qpDTyVOYD999Pty+Uv3JqJ1OdzARHuKXfSU4CsteYtOUF9Uw5fO dDPWnnrwkqg//GQgJCcDsVk75Ui0r28= 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=MWG0a1mhMLJ87/guinyPupCSZSNAY7bfFycFBqwuF ys=; b=x8huIA2/87fE/AKTEg8ahO9QVNcrBACDfXa4CqDM521LJvNbHD5ICLkZX aMNEZyCmY5wfHX9TvTQG48v8G0SmzbyjucoVivC1YrMVvtQf/Y0laLgMBCXA5S1V BdVdSSBy1BKGNvTho9Mni37x5MLhxnVAf+Nce3QMOJa5+qGXqRuGfjostUfPsbGB u/9jyhdINCyXoVBwTwMmwGxvOkFad+SzHiag7whRZHWafIVMORE3VTlPaVwyGeZB EuxxcgTbUU9Ong0FOwH2N4Jgdb3JiLboz2b0bq6g7OCEQZWBffaDWGKyTOjm5gOE TX8BufIGU0FZvsHdppJreqsfNqdxw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrjeeigdduudegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght 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 D059A3060EF2; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:29:52 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: taox.zhu@intel.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Jerin Jacob , Nithin Dabilpuram , Vamsi Attunuru , dpdk-dev , Jerin Jacob Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:29:50 +0100 Message-ID: <4933617.aeNJFYEL58@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20200217164345.6207-1-taox.zhu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mempool/octeontx2: fix compile issue 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 17/02/2020 14:06, Jerin Jacob: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:39 PM wrote: > > > > From: Tao Zhu > > > > Change the definition of C99 style to C90 style. > > compile log as below: > > > > otx2_mempool_ops.c: In function =E2=80=98otx2_npa_populate=E2=80=99: > > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c:790:2: error: \ > > =E2=80=98for=E2=80=99 loop initial declarations are only allowe= d in C99 mode > > for (int i =3D 0; i < OTX2_L1D_NB_SETS; i++) > > ^ > > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c:790:2: \ > > note: use option -std=3Dc99 or -std=3Dgnu99 to compile your code > > /dpdk/drivers/mempool/octeontx2/otx2_mempool_ops.c: At top level: > > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option \ > > "-Wno-address-of-packed-member" [-Werror] > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > make[6]: *** [otx2_mempool_ops.o] Error 1 > > make[5]: *** [octeontx2] Error 2 > > make[4]: *** [mempool] Error 2 > > > > Fixes: 9ed8e95c ("mempool/octeontx2: optimize for L1D cache architectur= e") > > > > Signed-off-by: Tao Zhu >=20 > Just for understanding purposes, Why one need to use C90 instead of > C99? May I know, What environment, Do you see this issue? > In any case, >=20 > Reviewed-by: Jerin Jacob Applied, thanks