From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2449CA0A0E; Tue, 11 May 2021 17:56:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80624410E9; Tue, 11 May 2021 17:56:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oo1-f52.google.com (mail-oo1-f52.google.com [209.85.161.52]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F123C40140 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 17:56:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oo1-f52.google.com with SMTP id h9-20020a4a94090000b02901f9d4f64172so4298396ooi.5 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 08:56:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Nx0PF91zI7jo36ypd8KzuW6QFFRACzhGRZRIiiZ1+VA=; b=TylT0Yq34TlpaGZSWgXZEwgibjT3jbjCnk3SksE1BnXtyQLm+YIV+fQX5Rqiuz5vIO nO/QA2KxdtcE7aVNAcxw0yk5qzlI4npJ70z6mhjAC2FVtFi0Om464JQrK+GmAzUZ2STo 3chnlhPtE7E92RZp2ZNjYq0A4UxG3uvFXuuH8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Nx0PF91zI7jo36ypd8KzuW6QFFRACzhGRZRIiiZ1+VA=; b=Da+hKynxtF7hp/dDcMMTz+O4Oh1IhqpY79DVoxzsb0/zmuTvFu08Y0NxpwHz+ppAdX 4YGATXMDmuWnegGohQgSzHL5CzIHtQGl1ybTeYIpVuZOQqRdsSvZgTOcUKbFVi6p5Bjc ++KZziwo+OAsjDEu9klumpXUbVLgJvpzSrysNzZ+LjkbgZf0x+ORB2QFyZVz3qgE9Xh4 VJFNQqUO1IhmedIYXaPT7BrnJOTiCldqD5OdiJEy5PEqvNUzGbQ6hBwdQoOPooa0vWq/ O8crzPtSHShob9R9d9oeD9VQS+2PnLUzaZZDLLJ5NNPLwNsCSNgCpsTpc8PBth1YBZI1 TL2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530UhOnHD+S/TMYXd64e0e8Abfvq1y7f0i9DuNnlnOfEAPntFZJW WCac+saTsz7NOJEfywHOEio9Yf626OUWO7S543T9tg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxnXZG5XeaFmhoYzyNsIpeCfXO+55FN52QFbd/W5+xfHsbLZCjvVb54pq0DEC5P+i36YeRwXYswTdCXz9Bu0W4= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:625c:: with SMTP id y28mr23800125oog.45.1620748592095; Tue, 11 May 2021 08:56:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210507181025.84012-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> <20210511144554.146987-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <20210511144554.146987-1-lance.richardson@broadcom.com> From: Lance Richardson Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 11:56:20 -0400 Message-ID: To: Dmitry Kozlyuk , Narcisa Ana Maria Vasile , Dmitry Malloy , Pallavi Kadam Cc: dev , Anatoly Burakov , Thomas Monjalon , dpdk stable Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="0000000000001f858505c20ff09d" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] eal: fix memory mapping for 32-bit targets X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" --0000000000001f858505c20ff09d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > v4: Identical to v1, with now included in rte_eal_paging.h > to (hopefully) make off_t available for Windows builds. With this version, using off_t is no longer a problem, however based on the new compilation error it appears that for Windows, off_t is a 32-bit type while size_t is a 64-bit type: ../lib/eal/windows/eal_memory.c:519:37: error: shift count >= width of type [-Werror,-Wshift-count-overflow] DWORD offset_high = (DWORD)(offset >> 32); ^ ~~ So the options seem to be to either use uint64_t for the offset parameter as in patch v3, or else introduce something like: typedef uint64_t rte_off_t; Thoughts/opinions? --0000000000001f858505c20ff09d--