On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 02:09:26PM +0200, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> On 2024-09-18 13:15, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:30 AM Mattias Rönnblom <hof...@lysator.liu.se>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2024-09-16 14:05, David Marchand wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 10:41 AM Mattias Rönnblom
> > > > <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/lib/acl/rte_acl_osdep.h b/lib/acl/rte_acl_osdep.h
> > > > > index 3c1dc402ca..e4c7d07c69 100644
> > > > > --- a/lib/acl/rte_acl_osdep.h
> > > > > +++ b/lib/acl/rte_acl_osdep.h
> > > > > @@ -5,10 +5,6 @@
> > > > > #ifndef _RTE_ACL_OSDEP_H_
> > > > > #define _RTE_ACL_OSDEP_H_
> > > > >
> > > > > -#ifdef __cplusplus
> > > > > -extern "C" {
> > > > > -#endif
> > > > > -
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * @file
> > > > > *
> > > > > @@ -49,6 +45,10 @@ extern "C" {
> > > > > #include <rte_cpuflags.h>
> > > > > #include <rte_debug.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > +#ifdef __cplusplus
> > > > > +extern "C" {
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > +
> > > > > #ifdef __cplusplus
> > > > > }
> > > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > This part is a NOOP, so we can just drop it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I did try to drop such NOOPs, but then something called
> > > sanitycheckcpp.exe failed the build because it required 'extern "C"' in
> > > those header files.
> > >
> > > Isn't that check superfluous? A missing 'extern "C"' would be detected
> > > at a later stage, when the dummy C++ programs are compiled against the
> > > public header files.
> > >
> > > If we agree santifycheckcpp.exe should be fixed, is that a separate
> > > patch or need it be a part of this patch set?
> >
> > This check was added with 1ee492bdc4ff ("buildtools/chkincs: check
> > missing C++ guards").
> > The check is too naive, and I am not sure we can actually make a better
> > one...
> >
> > I would remove this check, if no better option.
> >
>
> Just to be clear: what you are suggesting is removing the check as a part of
> this patch set?
>
> I think I was wrong saying the dummy C++ programs already detect omissions
> of C linkage.
>
> I'll leave for Bruce to comment on this before I do anything.
>
I agree that the existing check is very naive. Maybe we can go with a
simple fix like adding an allowlist of files which we ignore for 'extern C'
checking?
I don't remember the details of the original patch unfortunately, but from the
commit log I think I found that just compiling C++ with the C headers
didn't throw any errors for the missing extern. I think the functions need
to be actually called and then attempted linked for us to see the errors,
and that is not something that is easily implemented.
/Bruce
