On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 10:35:56PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 07/07/2021 22:23, Tyler Retzlaff: > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 06:29:20PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 24/06/2021 18:02, Tyler Retzlaff: > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 08:54:49AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 23/06/2021 20:26, Tyler Retzlaff: > > > > > > // lib/eal/gcc/rte_toolchain_common.h > > > > > > #define __rte_noreturn __attribute__((noreturn)) > > > > > > > > > > We should keep a macro in rte_common.h which triggers an explicit > > > > > error > > > > > > > > i think that's relatively trivial to do. rte_common.h could after > > > > toolchain specific include do a simple test. > > > > > > > > #ifndef __rte_no_return > > > > #error no __rte_no_return defined for toolchain > > > > #endif > > > > > > No I was thinking of: > > > > > > /** Doxygen comment for the attribute below */ > > > #define __rte_no_return RTE_ATTR_NOT_SUPPORTED > > > > when you suggested this i thought it was something already established. > > i see now that's not the case. would you mind elaborating a little with > > a complete example of the toolchain specific override and the generic > > include? i'd just like to understand completely what you were > > proposing so i can try it out. > > Sorry I don't have time currently to elaborate, > and not sure how to implement it. > I may look at it next week if that's the way we want to go.
i think the community generally preferences not having obvious conditional compilation on a per-macro basis so i think it is the way we want to go. i'll take a look at the existing uses of include/generic/foo.h and <arch>/include/foo.h where the arch specific includes generic for inspiration. but i look forward to seeing what you come up with when you get a chance to focus on the topic.
