The "rte_memcpy" will be a macro but not a function on aarch64 platform if the 
flags are not enabled (latest version). In old versions, it will always be a 
macro to memcpy.
Now the preprocessor couldn't handle the "rte_memcpy" properly. Because the 
definition has the format like "rte_memcpy(d, s, n)", the single word 
"rte_memcpy" then cannnot be recognized.
This fix is a WA on some level and not graceful. An additional if-else check 
will affect the performance a little (I hope not so much). Or shall we change 
the "rte_memcpy" from a pre-defined macro to an in-line function in the old 
versions and the latest version without the flags enabled?

Thanks

Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <iloveth...@163.com>
---
 app/cli-functions.c | 14 ++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/cli-functions.c b/app/cli-functions.c
index 1bddbbe..9c2fa2e 100644
--- a/app/cli-functions.c
+++ b/app/cli-functions.c
@@ -901,7 +901,7 @@ rte_memcpy_perf(unsigned int cnt, unsigned int kb, int flag)
        uint64_t start_time, total_time;
        uint64_t total_bits, bits_per_tick;
        unsigned int i;
-       void *(*cpy)(void *, const void *, size_t);
+       /* void *(*cpy)(void *, const void *, size_t); */
 
        kb *= 1024;
 
@@ -911,11 +911,17 @@ rte_memcpy_perf(unsigned int cnt, unsigned int kb, int 
flag)
        src = RTE_PTR_ALIGN(buf[0], RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE);
        dst = RTE_PTR_ALIGN(buf[1], RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE);
 
-       cpy = (flag)? rte_memcpy : memcpy;
+       /* cpy = (flag)? rte_memcpy : memcpy; */
 
        start_time = rte_get_tsc_cycles();
-       for(i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
-               cpy(dst, src, kb);
+       if (flag) {
+               for(i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
+                       rte_memcpy(dst, src, kb);
+       }
+       else {
+               for(i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
+                       memcpy(dst, src, kb);
+       }
        total_time = rte_get_tsc_cycles() - start_time;
 
        total_bits = ((uint64_t)cnt * (uint64_t)kb) * 8L;
-- 
2.11.0.windows.1


Reply via email to