24/03/2021 18:28, Tyler Retzlaff: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 06:04:08PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 24/03/2021 17:45, Tyler Retzlaff: > > > > I understood this part. > > > > My question is more about the reason for having this define. > > I think it is there because some compilers don't have asm keyword, > > but have __asm__. And maybe that's the case for some C++ compilers. > > If I'm right, this patch is breaking compilation with some > > C++ compilers. > > so to qualify. you mean maybe it is breaking compilation of c++ in a > compiler that explicitly violates c++ standard when compiling c++? that > would mean it is not a c++ compiler.
The asm keyword is part of all C++ standards? It seems asm is non-standard in C, that's why we use __asm__. > in general i don't think it is a good practice to have dpdk introduce > names into the application namespace unqualified, but the point you make > is valid it can break c++ compilation if something was using this macro > as a convenience to the compiler specific extension __asm__. there will > be further issues with varying syntaxes that __asm__-style extensions > take from compiler to compiler as well. Yes we need to make sure there is no specific extension involved. Is C++ asm the same as the C __asm__? > would you prefer that i change the preprocessor protection to include only > windows? since i'm certain that this will break for any c++ compiler on > windows the moment any stl header is included. No, C++ is probably the right scope. > let me know how to adjust the patch i'll submit a new version. I don't know yet. I would like to understand the global picture, and have it properly documented in this commit log.
