> > > > And something like this?
> > > >
> > > > #define rte_memcpy(dst, src, n) \
> > > > - ((__builtin_constant_p(n)) ? \
> > > > + ({ (__builtin_constant_p(n)) ? \
> > > > memcpy((dst), (src), (n)) : \
> > > > - rte_memcpy_func((dst), (src), (n)))
> > > > + rte_memcpy_func((dst), (src), (n)); })
> > >
> > > What happens to the returned value after this change?
> > > ptr = rte_memcpy(dst, src, n) + offset:
> > >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Exprs.html#Statement-Exprs
> >
> > Whole expression should be 'void *' type (like *memcpy()) and it should work
> > as usual (see maxint() example in above link). It is GCC extension.
>
> OK nice.
> I didn't test it on SUSE 11 SP3. I assume you did it?
I did not tested this, as this was only proposal. I only run build process and
it pass.
Patch proposal will be sent in a while.
> Please Pawel, could you send a proper patch quickly?
> If nobody disagree, it'll be merged in RC5 today.
>
> > > > Thomas, can you check build with EXTRA_CFLAG='-Wunused-value'.
> > >
> > > You mean EXTRA_CFLAGS (with a S).
> > > It fails in many locations.
> > > What's your point?
> >
> > I am just asking if this is an typo, error or intend to do statements with
> > no
> effects like bellow.
> >
> > ixgbe_common.c:4429:3: error: statement with no effect [-Werror=unused-
> value]
> >
> > 4426: /* first pull in the header so we know the buffer length */
> > 4427: for (bi = 0; bi < dword_len; bi++) {
> > 4428: buffer[bi] = IXGBE_READ_REG_ARRAY(hw, IXGBE_FLEX_MNG,
> bi);
> > 4429: IXGBE_LE32_TO_CPUS(&buffer[bi]); // <------ here
> > 4430 }
>
> It's an intent. On big endian CPU, this has an effect.
>
If you see something what I am not, please ignore this part but for me this
looks like it should be:
tmp = IXGBE_READ_REG_ARRAY(hw, IXGBE_FLEX_MNG,
buffer[bi] = IXGBE_LE32_TO_CPUS (tmp);
Pawel
