On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:52:40 +0100 Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 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. > There should be some test for C++ application use of API. There doesn't appear to be one in the current CI suite.
