Hi Christian,
Couldn't follow up on this last week, however I still have some concerns and
comments, please see below.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 01:59:59PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> The definition of almost any newer standard like --stc=c11 will drop
> __APPLCE_ALTIVEC__ which otherwise would be defined.
> If that is the case then altivec.h will redefine bool to a type
> conflicting with those defined by stdbool.h.
>
> This breaks compilation of 18.08 on ppc64 like:
> mlx5_nl_flow.c:407:17: error: incompatible types when assigning
> to type ‘__vector __bool int’ {aka ‘__vector(4) __bool int’}
> from type ‘int’ in_port_id_set = false;
>
> Other alternatives were pursued on [1] but they always ended up being
> more complex than what would be appropriate for the issue we face.
>
> [1]: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/109926.html
>
> Tested-by: Takeshi T Yoshimura <t...@jp.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com>
> ---
> .../common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
> index 75f74897b..0b3b89b56 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
> @@ -37,6 +37,17 @@
> #include <string.h>
> /*To include altivec.h, GCC version must >= 4.8 */
> #include <altivec.h>
> +/*
> + * Compilation workaround for PPC64 targets when AltiVec is fully
> + * enabled e.g. with std=c11. Otherwise there would be a type conflict
> + * of "bool" between stdbool and altivec.
> + */
> +#if defined(__PPC64__) && !defined(__APPLE_ALTIVEC__)
> + #undef bool
> + /* redefine as in stdbool.h */
> + #define bool _Bool
> +#endif
> +
The above will break existing C++ programs that include rte_memcpy.h.
Problem is that bool is an actual C++ type. C99 has _Bool which doesn't
exist in C++ along with a bool macro that appears only after including
stdbool.h.
To make things worse, nothing prevents C++ programs from importing a C-style
bool macro by including stdbool.h (or cstdbool).
Enclosing it in #ifdef __cplusplus won't help because you never know what
bool is supposed to be in the first place as it depends on how applications
are written. I think something like this prior suggestion [1]
(saving/restoring bool) is the only way to deal with that in a safe-ish
fashion.
Pending something better, the above #undef/#define workaround is only safe
to use inside mlx5 PMD code that triggers the compilation issue. It must not
be found in a public header.
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> extern "C" {
> --
> 2.17.1
>
[1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/110401.html
--
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND
