On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:54:24AM -0800, Andre Muezerie wrote: > Macro __SIZEOF_LONG__ is not standardized and MSVC does not define it. > Therefore the errors below are seen with MSVC: > > ../lib/mldev/mldev_utils_scalar.c(465): error C2065: > '__SIZEOF_LONG__': undeclared identifier > ../lib/mldev/mldev_utils_scalar.c(478): error C2051: > case expression not constant > > ../lib/mldev/mldev_utils_scalar_bfloat16.c(33): error C2065: > '__SIZEOF_LONG__': undeclared identifier > ../lib/mldev/mldev_utils_scalar_bfloat16.c(49): error C2051: > case expression not constant > > Turns out that the places where __SIZEOF_LONG__ is currently > being used can equally well use sizeof(long) instead. > > v4: > * rebased on latest main as previous patch was not applying cleanly > anymore. > > v3: > * added prefix RTE_ to BITS_PER_LONG* and moved them to rte_common.h > * defined PLT_BITS_PER_LONG* in drivers/common/cnxk/roc_platform.h to > avoid warnings from checkpatches.sh like: > > Warning in drivers/common/cnxk/roc_bits.h: > Warning in drivers/common/cnxk/roc_ie_ot.h: > Warning in drivers/common/cnxk/roc_ie_ot_tls.h: > Use plt_ symbols instead of rte_ API in cnxk base driver > > It can be seen that the same was done in the past for similar > macros like PLT_CACHE_LINE_SIZE > > v2: > * fixed typo in commit message > > Andre Muezerie (7): > eal: eliminate dependency on non-portable __SIZEOF_LONG__ > drivers/bus: eliminate dependency on non-portable __SIZEOF_LONG__ > drivers/common: eliminate dependency on non-portable __SIZEOF_LONG__ > drivers/dma: eliminate dependency on non-portable __SIZEOF_LONG__ > drivers/net: eliminate dependency on non-portable __SIZEOF_LONG__ > drivers/raw: eliminate dependency on non-portable __SIZEOF_LONG__ > mldev: eliminate dependency on non-portable __SIZEOF_LONG__ > Just out of interest, is there are reason why the simple solution of just putting "#define __SIZEOF_LONG__ (sizeof(long))" in a header file for MSVC is not done? Should be a couple of lines in a single patch, rather than a 7-patch series, no?
After all, just because something is non-standard, doesn't mean that we can't use it if its widely available. /Bruce
