> From: David Marchand [mailto:david.march...@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, 9 January 2023 12.22 > attributes > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 4:10 PM Morten Brørup > <m...@smartsharesystems.com> wrote: > > > > Add "nonnull" function attribute to help the compiler detect a NULL > > pointer being passed to a function not accepting NULL pointers as an > > argument at build time. > > > > Add "access" function attribute to tell the compiler how a function > > accesses its pointer arguments. > > > > Add these attributes to the rte_memcpy() function, as the first in > > hopefully many to come. > > > > Compilation is broken starting first patch, so patches must be > reordered to have the fixes first.
Will do. > > > > v5: > > * No changes. > > v4: > > * No changes. > > v3: > > * No changes. > > v2: > > * Only define "nonnull" for GCC and CLANG. > > * Append _param/_params to prepare for possible future attributes > > attached directly to the individual parameters, like __rte_unused. > > * Use RTE_TOOLCHAIN_GCC instead of RTE_CC_GCC, to fix complaints > about > > GCC_VERSION being undefined. > > * Try to fix Doxygen compliants. > > Patch history should be put as annotations (i.e. after --- but before > patch content). Will do. [...] > This is tightly bound to gcc syntax. > With dedicated macros (which I find easier to read too), we can hope > to adapt to other compilers if some of them add support for this kind > of code cookies. > __rte_read_only_params(indexes...) > __rte_write_only_params(indexes...) > __rte_no_access_params(indexes...) I agree. Splitting the generic access macro up into dedicated access macros is probably better.
