From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D260A2C37 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jun 2017 03:16:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,377,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="1163843139" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.91]) ([10.237.220.91]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2017 03:16:22 -0700 From: Ferruh Yigit To: Adrien Mazarguil Cc: Nelio Laranjeiro , DPDK References: <2f049b66-c76a-9ff8-20c2-df2c25957f59@intel.com> <20170616121922.GC1758@6wind.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:16:22 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] mlx debug build error with clang 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: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:16:25 -0000 On 6/16/2017 3:49 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 6/16/2017 1:58 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 6/16/2017 1:19 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: >>> Hi Ferruh, >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 04:32:03PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>> Hi Adrien, Nelio, >>>> >>>> I am getting following build error [1] with clang [2] when debug enabled >>>> for mlx4 and mlx5. >>>> >>>> This started after I update my box, not sure what triggered this. >>>> Can you please help fixing this? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> ferruh >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> .../drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4_flow.c:731:3: error: use of GNU statement >>>> expression extension [-Werror,-Wgnu-statement-expression] >>>> claim_zero(ibv_destroy_qp(fdq->qp)); >>>> ^ >>>> .../drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4.h:185:25: note: expanded from macro 'claim_zero' >>>> #define claim_zero(...) assert((__VA_ARGS__) == 0) >>>> ^ >>>> /usr/include/assert.h:95:6: note: expanded from macro 'assert' >>>> ({ \ >>>> ^ >>>> >>>> .... >>>> >>>> .../drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_fdir.c:278:2: error: use of GNU statement >>>> expression extension [-Werror,-Wgnu-statement-expression] >>>> assert(((uint8_t *)attr + sizeof(*attr)) == (uint8_t *)spec_offset); >>>> ^ >>>> /usr/include/assert.h:95:6: note: expanded from macro 'assert' >>>> ({ \ >>>> ^ >>>> >>>> [Many of similar ...] >>>> >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> target: x86_64-native-linuxapp-clang >>>> >>>> clang version 4.0.0 (tags/RELEASE_400/final) >>> >>> Recent Glibc versions now apparently handle assert() through a nonstandard >>> ({ }) construct, which is not pedantic-safe due to a missing __extension__ >>> keyword. >>> >>> assert.h still provides a standard assert() definition that shouldn't cause >>> compilation to fail when the following condition is met: >>> >>> #if !defined __GNUC__ || defined __STRICT_ANSI__ >>> >>> However __GNUC__ is (always?) defined by clang for maximum compatibility >>> with GCC while __STRICT_ANSI__ is not due to the -std=gnu99 parameter, >>> assert.h thinks it's OK to use a ({ }) construct but is then caught by >>> clang's -pedantic parameter. >>> >>> There are two ways to address this issue while keeping our beloved -pedantic >>> parameter in debug mode: >>> >>> 1. Replacing -std=gnu99 with -std=c99 (which is even stricter) to bring back >>> __STRICT_ANSI__. >>> 2. Replacing assert() statements with RTE_ASSERT(). >>> >>> The former should be doable now that DPDK includes have been cleaned up, and >>> we're thinking about doing the latter at some point. >>> >>> Since I don't have a recent Glibc handy, can you try replacing -std=gnu99 >>> with -std=c99 in both Makefiles (mlx4 and mlx5), and report how GCC and >>> clang fare? (GCC at least seems to have no problem with that on my side) >> >> Sure, I will try -std=c99 > > This fixes the build error. Hi Adrien, Are you planning to send a patch for this? Thanks, ferruh > >> >>> >> >