From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30744A0471
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 19:51:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC92C1C3AB;
	Sat, 22 Jun 2019 19:51:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-ua1-f41.google.com (mail-ua1-f41.google.com
 [209.85.222.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4B71C33C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 19:51:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-ua1-f41.google.com with SMTP id o19so4135052uap.13
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 10:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
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=1ao9sPwiBqd5YFHBLhb6uYChzG48sYER6sqBxfq+kQ8=;
 b=B/muZuyhbSYthDU+70yBDPLz6JLNhkFhbgigDUTKoW3FKlP3ekHreB8rwSzSv4zTxg
 +KWTfGjdtByzx1pGYo0D055rmUfP/tT02OPWRO39hm2G67TBH8XHyU3p2h9qdujOBRlJ
 0ZQyZoXI7iX3KfVL7xBFQ7EBDIcDQ63aEa6lnCWBm7K26Y/6DwuYoAMBx8qi0eg+OInG
 FQfuBt67jveJnT0xxdlmVXWf0AgKThWoWuX20HwO8UcC/bpSk9I4FWGSM2ed8LTetcLx
 4DmSKoPX03ngE5vEseLjqBu1TKHrK0gFf/C+dd9kcDwrtCR5GQMMiziy1H3G+TbZ784z
 WlJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWPapvlu9gYZar2YFQQDUWt6/hT33s09IR6q1Oy/lsGCe+rbJxo
 ZG4yLtB0ApzpuppL+8vPnN1b9zreywuCWg6ZQIYW3Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwDgb3pd/cAXs/QmYYGb0KB8H85bkjH3qyHjB0RRQGT1dP1pTn/KdCTRmvc4XkQ5wq8GPQ7LI8nI/Sf5zi/cR4=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:168a:: with SMTP id e10mr62742592uaf.87.1561225881752; 
 Sat, 22 Jun 2019 10:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190620164206.3972-1-gage.eads@intel.com>
 <f7tv9x0ru55.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com>
 <CAJFAV8x7L8UjcjSX=JdG4Vv3nvdpS=TNzHCkaBHNOqTXf13RsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJFAV8xV1dXz3=a5pzyKvnUAqKMZWxQp0f+tTtEAz=ofWYrc0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJFAV8xZXjGaNgTVd4OF9P1i_HV7_eHmio6cfUHubenUVB3T5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190621162726.GA21895@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
 <CAJFAV8xMtfxLp6=ULU-dH8qFHbmwZzRmS06EDcMgZ9-J631kFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190621174023.GC21895@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
 <CAJFAV8xe6kv+m3kfrwe8wPPPWTn4fHR83sYzS4sLGdche27-jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190622161700.GB16476@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190622161700.GB16476@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 19:51:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJFAV8yei0hMXhxxN7cHqQh_AfU8OB6neMdw2cRGotyw=vYeFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>, 
 Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>, 
 Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
 Van Haaren Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>, 
 Nikhil Rao <nikhil.rao@intel.com>,
 Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>, 
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: promote some service core functions to
	stable
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://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 6:17 PM Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 09:58:41PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:41 PM Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 06:47:31PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:28 PM Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:45:45PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > > > > > Ok, did a new pass on the tree.. found quite some sites where w=
e
> have
> > > > > > issues (and other discrepancies... I started a new patchset).
> > > > > > Looked at gcc documentation [1], and to me the safer approach
> would
> > > be to
> > > > > > enforce that __rte_experimental is the first thing of a symbol
> > > > > declaration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yes, thats the only way it works, in fact I'm suprised gcc didn't
> > > throw an
> > > > > error
> > > > > about expecting an asm statement if you put it anywhere else
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > - I tried this, but then I hit issues with inlines.
> > > > Like for example:
> > > >
> > > > static inline char * __rte_experimental
> > > > rte_mbuf_buf_addr(struct rte_mbuf *mb, struct rte_mempool *mp)
> > > > {
> > > >   return (char *)mb + sizeof(*mb) + rte_pktmbuf_priv_size(mp);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I did not find a way to move the __rte_experimental tag without
> getting
> > > > warnings.
> > > Right, thats the way its supposed to work on gcc/icc/clang.  function
> > > attributes
> > > must be declared between the return type and the function name,
> anything
> > > else
> > > will generate compiler warnings/errors.  Because __rte_experimental
> > > expands to a
> > > __attribute__(...), you have to place it there.
> > >
> > > > If I try to compile some sources which includes rte_mbuf.h but
> without
> > > > -DALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API, then gcc errors at including the header,
> > > > complaining that rte_mbuf_buf_addr() is deprecated, even if this
> inline
> > > is
> > > > not called.
> > > >
> > > Thats...odd.  I wonder if thats an artifact of the function being
> marked as
> > > inline.  The compiler is supposed to insert the warning for any
> remaining
> > > calls
> > > after dead code eliminitaion.  If the function is inline, I wonder if
> the
> > > compiler conservatively inserts the warning because it got expanded
> into
> > > another
> > > function, when it can't tell if it will be entirely elimintated.  Can
> you
> > > provide a code sample that demonstrates this?
> > >
> > >
> > rte_mbuf_buf_addr() is called in rte_mbuf_data_addr_default(), both of
> them
> > are unused by the includers of rte_mbuf.h.
> >
> >
> > Reproduced it like this:
> >
> > [dmarchan@dmarchan ~]$ cat deprecated.c
> > __attribute__((deprecated)) static inline void *plap(void)
> > {
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > __attribute__((deprecated)) static inline void *plep(void)
> > {
> > plap();
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > {
> > return 0;
> > }
> > [dmarchan@dmarchan ~]$ gcc -o deprecated -Wall deprecated.c
> > deprecated.c: In function =E2=80=98plep=E2=80=99:
> > deprecated.c:8:2: warning: =E2=80=98plap=E2=80=99 is deprecated (declar=
ed at
> > deprecated.c:1) [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> >   plap();
> >   ^
> >
> Hmm, yes, that seems buggy to me.  I wonder if you are seeing this bug in
> action:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla//show_bug.cgi?id=3D80680


It has the same flavor yes.
Currently using gcc version 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-36) (GCC)



>
> Seem like the behavior fits.  It would be interesting to know if clang an=
d
> icc
> suffer from the same issue
>

Just tried, clang is fine.
clang version 3.4.2 (tags/RELEASE_34/dot2-final)


Actually, I went and protected this call to rte_mbuf_buf_addr().
And with just this, it builds fine.
I think I am going to take this approach, just a little comment :-).


--=20
David Marchand