On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 05:27:12 +0000
"Peng, ZhihongX" <zhihongx.p...@intel.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 10:48 AM
> > To: Peng, ZhihongX <zhihongx.p...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Lin, Xueqin
> > <xueqin....@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable AddressSanitizer feature on DPDK
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 02:01:47 +0000
> > zhihongx.p...@intel.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > +if get_option('b_sanitize').startswith('address')
> > > + cflags += '-DRTE_MALLOC_ASAN'
> > > +endif
> > > +
> >
> > This looks great, but can we make it just do-the-right-thing and get rid of
> > the
> > nerd knobs (i.e no meson configure).
> >
> > The address sanitizer already has a way to detect if enabled.
> >
> > GCC uses:
> > __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__
> >
> > Clang uses:
> > #if defined(__has_feature)
> > # if __has_feature(address_sanitizer)
>
> Tried this method you said. It can run successfully. Because gcc and clang
> have different
> Methods for determining whether to turn on the asan function, so if you judge
> the two
> methods in the code, it feels not simple to judge in meson.
There is already compiler specific #ifdef's why not do this contained in one
header file?
The point is DPDK is trying to get away from having configuration settings if
at all
possible. Configuration creates dependency nightmares and also leaves many code
paths
as never tested.
