> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ilya Maximets > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 4:15 PM > To: dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Cc: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>; Ilya Maximets > <i.maxim...@samsung.com>; sta...@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix build of external apps with clang on > armv8 > > In case DPDK built using GCC, RTE_TOOLCHAIN_CLANG is not defined. > But 'rte_atomic.h' is a generic header that included to the external apps > like OVS while building with DPDK. As a result, clang build of OVS fails > on ARMv8 if DPDK built using gcc: > > include/generic/rte_atomic.h:215:9: error: > implicit declaration of function '__atomic_exchange_2' > is invalid in C99 > include/generic/rte_atomic.h:494:9: error: > implicit declaration of function '__atomic_exchange_4' > is invalid in C99 > include/generic/rte_atomic.h:772:9: error: > implicit declaration of function '__atomic_exchange_8' > is invalid in C99 > > We need to check for current compiler, not the compiler used for DPDK > build. > > Fixes: 7bdccb93078e ("eal: fix ARM build with clang") > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com> > --- > lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h > index b99ba4688..d0c464fb1 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/generic/rte_atomic.h > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ rte_atomic16_exchange(volatile uint16_t *dst, uint16_t > val); static inline uint16_t rte_atomic16_exchange(volatile uint16_t > *dst, uint16_t val) { -#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) && > defined(RTE_TOOLCHAIN_CLANG) > +#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) && defined(__clang__) > return __atomic_exchange_n(dst, val, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); #else > return __atomic_exchange_2(dst, val, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); @@ -495,7 > +495,7 @@ rte_atomic32_exchange(volatile uint32_t *dst, uint32_t val); > static inline uint32_t rte_atomic32_exchange(volatile uint32_t *dst, > uint32_t val) { -#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) && > defined(RTE_TOOLCHAIN_CLANG) > +#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) && defined(__clang__) > return __atomic_exchange_n(dst, val, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); #else > return __atomic_exchange_4(dst, val, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); @@ -777,7 > +777,7 @@ rte_atomic64_exchange(volatile uint64_t *dst, uint64_t val); > static inline uint64_t rte_atomic64_exchange(volatile uint64_t *dst, > uint64_t val) { -#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) && > defined(RTE_TOOLCHAIN_CLANG) > +#if defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) && defined(__clang__) > return __atomic_exchange_n(dst, val, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); #else > return __atomic_exchange_8(dst, val, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); > -- > 2.17.1
Is this really architecture-specific? Would the same issue not occur on e.g. x86 or PPC?
