> On 20. 3. 2023, at 19:31, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 2023-03-17 17:37, Ondřej Surý via lttng-dev wrote:
>> When adding REMOVED_FLAG to the pointers in the rculfhash
>> implementation, retype the generic pointer to uintptr_t to fix the
>> compiler error.
>
> What is the compiler error ? I'm wondering whether the expected choice
> to match the rest of this file's content would be to use "uintptr_t *" or
> "unsigned long *" ?
This is the error:
rculfhash.c:1201:2: error: address argument to atomic operation must be a
pointer to integer ('struct cds_lfht_node **' invalid)
uatomic_or(&node->next, REMOVED_FLAG);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
../include/urcu/uatomic.h:60:8: note: expanded from macro 'uatomic_or'
(void)__atomic_or_fetch((addr), (mask), __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
^ ~~~~~~
rculfhash.c:1444:3: error: address argument to atomic operation must be a
pointer to integer ('struct cds_lfht_node **' invalid)
uatomic_or(&fini_bucket->next, REMOVED_FLAG);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
../include/urcu/uatomic.h:60:8: note: expanded from macro 'uatomic_or'
(void)__atomic_or_fetch((addr), (mask), __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
^ ~~~~~~
uintptr_t is defined as "unsigned integer type capable of holding a pointer to
void" while unsigned long is at least 32-bit;
I guess that works in a practise, but using unsigned long to retype the
pointers might blow up (thinking of x32 which I know
little about, but it's kind of hybrid architecture, isn't it?)
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@sury.org
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
