From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF911B464 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:34:35 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2019 09:34:34 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,545,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="271515532" Received: from fmsmsx108.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.206]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2019 09:34:33 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx121.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.36) by FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:34:32 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.160]) by fmsmsx121.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.18]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:34:32 -0800 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: "Richardson, Bruce" CC: Tom Barbette , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Stephen Hemminger , Yongseok Koh , Adrien Mazarguil , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] remove usage of register keyword in C Thread-Index: AQHUuTt06tcH7ywiaEyddQ8UbzL1M6XJnYoAgAAGci4= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:34:32 +0000 Message-ID: <984B12F3-591B-4022-8D5D-34564F9737EF@intel.com> References: <20180731163059.27085-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20180731164840.GD5211@6wind.com> <20180731110737.38555f02@xeon-e3> <50204CDA-B4AD-44C8-AB07-2FE9C2A412C0@mellanox.com> <20180801140356.5ac88c43@xeon-e3> <2b06aafe-e444-b773-b5cd-bd0f186e46cd@kth.se>, <20190131091128.GA122080@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20190131091128.GA122080@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] remove usage of register keyword in C 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: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:34:35 -0000 I agree using register for todays compilers is unnecessary and can actually= be wrong in some cases. The compilers can pick the correct registers bette= r then we can normally and restricting the compiler makes no sense.=20 Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 31, 2019, at 3:11 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >=20 >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 09:02:36AM +0100, Tom Barbette wrote: >> Hi all, >>=20 >> Has there been any change regarding this? I'm still at DPDK 18.11. Maybe >> automatically add -Wno-register when C++17 is enabled? Or have a some >> register macro which gets undefined if C++17 is enabled? >>=20 >> The "warning: ISO C++1z does not allow =91register=92 storage class spec= ifier" >> is annoying. And vim always goes to some DPDK header when ":make" fails >> because of the warning... >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Tom >>=20 > What header is that? From what I see the patchset only makes changes to .= c > files rather than any .h files, so not sure it would help in your case. >=20 > For what it's worth on the general discussion, I'm in favour of applying > this patchset. I view marking variables as "register" as completely > unncessary. If someone can demonstrate a place where it actually makes a > difference, then we can keep that use of the keywork, otherwise I think t= he > code is as well off without it. >=20 > /Bruce