> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > Sent: Sunday, 12 November 2023 01.01 > > On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:29:32 +0100 > Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > diff --git a/lib/eventdev/rte_eventdev.c > b/lib/eventdev/rte_eventdev.c > > index 95373bbaad..adc9751cef 100644 > > --- a/lib/eventdev/rte_eventdev.c > > +++ b/lib/eventdev/rte_eventdev.c > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > > #include <errno.h> > > #include <stdint.h> > > #include <inttypes.h> > > +#include <assert.h> > > > > #include <rte_string_fns.h> > > #include <rte_log.h> > > @@ -28,6 +29,8 @@ > > #include "eventdev_pmd.h" > > #include "eventdev_trace.h" > > > > +static_assert(sizeof(struct rte_event) == 16, "Event structure size > is not 16-bytes in size"); > > + > > static struct rte_eventdev rte_event_devices[RTE_EVENT_MAX_DEVS]; > > Please don't reinvent RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(). > Instead fix that to be a static_assert()
I would say the opposite: With our upgrade to the C11 standard, let's get rid of the RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON() workaround for the lack of static_assert() in older C standards. Unfortunately, the static_assert(expression) variant without the "message" parameter, which would make our RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON() macro completely obsolete, requires C23. And I don't see how we can make this variant available with C11. So we probably have to wait until DPDK requires C23. Until then, let's gradually phase out the DPDK-specific RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON() in favor of standard C's static_assert(), and live with the inconvenience of having to provide a message parameter for it. Please also note that static_assert() can be used outside code blocks, which makes it handy for use in header files.
