From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E703DA56E
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 18:49:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394D720A6F;
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:49:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161])
by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:49:53 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender
:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=gohwqt99WTXYA81nc9egamU2YI
B5shrLR8Ek0t5xh+M=; b=NE13THr/6aolnFH19rNiSDKbGHA3EUqQldjZ4dzZZY
4yKzksB1ZmBCamErvbicNQ2e228bxrrkecvR7C8Y5il8iqmAbMvmzSiYTujgNTXB
2KRAjGG9MjyaiOPBOudA9wiJDsf0+ANU0jWCdinnL9OyS4Sni0QKDbwgB+aEAkzR
0=
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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=gohwqt
99WTXYA81nc9egamU2YIB5shrLR8Ek0t5xh+M=; b=OnaDGQHgKvCYb+2yrCaIak
Ohs2PCnh1QdkTvHcrrfip8/fUwPHUay15GKM9snGekWG8k0ubqFwJDpsJ1bY+x8+
WP3HeO+tgQ3K1I9d7FUp8/tkufvydddy0Zd1KN6Xk8FJp6XlqibFGOOkSZrualT9
RupIe2Dx/5dvH31ckjCHmrohegSkvfU9aBHRMfz8TmM/Qi2c1V/GmjHyW4sDTl7a
c1qgKCr141G62EsxaCSWK9AJ2D4t165yCepZ7ePrF6d2x8MmgE4piJ9x7dCZh49F
OKV2lwNjvPjAhkhNkeyDB0TcK+bFdZperjZoyHI08JMRtiIxyY0RYZFH0DIT6nYg
==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:wdJkWogxtHuyKSqAUKNSUVF2JByycoeJv5-bIgzdZq_MMP6IgHlhUQ>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DB6CD24547;
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:49:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "Patil, Harish" <Harish.Patil@cavium.com>,
"liang.j.ma@intel.com" <liang.j.ma@intel.com>,
"peter.mccarthy@intel.com" <peter.mccarthy@intel.com>,
jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, dev@dpdk.org, ferruh.yigit@intel.com,
adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 18:49:13 +0100
Message-ID: <5211400.X7DXXCoju3@xps>
In-Reply-To: <20180121093458.082f4589@xeon-e3>
References: <D6881123.1A3A3D%Harish.Patil@cavium.com>
<20236883.VkVyGBRfOF@xps> <20180121093458.082f4589@xeon-e3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Compilation errors in drivers/event/opdl/
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://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 17:49:54 -0000
21/01/2018 18:34, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 09:44:46 +0100
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>=20
> > 20/01/2018 06:18, Patil, Harish:
> > > Hi,
> > >=20
> > > I am seeing below compilation errors in drivers/event/opdl/, this is =
with
> > > cloned latest DPDK (git clone http://dpdk.org/git/dpdk).
> > >=20
> > > ..
> > > ..
> > > /home2/hpatil/e4/jan19-inbox-submit/dpdk/drivers/event/opdl/opdl_evde=
v_xsta
> > > ts.c: In function =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=CB=9Copdl_xstats_get_names=C3=A2=E2=
=82=AC=E2=84=A2:
> > > /home2/hpatil/e4/jan19-inbox-submit/dpdk/drivers/event/opdl/opdl_evde=
v_xsta
> > > ts.c:89:2: error: =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=CB=9Cfor=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2 lo=
op initial declarations are only allowed in
> > > C99 mode
> > > for (uint32_t j =3D 0; j < max_num_port_xstat; j++) {
> > > ^ =20
> >=20
> > My compiler does not raise this error.
> > What is your compiler?
> >=20
> > Anyone to fix it QUICKLY please? today?
> >=20
> > Harish, do you think we should revert if not fixed?
>=20
> Using declaration in for loop is a C++ thing which was inherited into C99.
> Does DPDK require C99 mode?
No DPDK is not generally C99.
> Putting loop variables in for() looks better, but the rest of DPDK
> doesn't use that style.
C99 was forced for this driver as a quick fix.
Either the coding style guideline is updated to C99,
or this driver must be adapted to the DPDK coding style.
I have no strong opinion.
Is C99 well supported in all compilers we want to use (including Windows)?