On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:53:50 +0100 "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 02-May-19 3:13 PM, Reshma Pattan wrote: > > gcc 9 on Fedora 30 gives an error > > "taking address of packed member may result in an > > unaligned pointer value" for -Waddress-of-packed-member. > > > > Report it as warning instead of error to fix the build. > > > > Snippet of build before fix > > ...lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c: In function ‘alloc_seg_walk’: > > ...lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c:768:12: error: taking address > > of packed member of ‘struct rte_mem_config’ may result in an unaligned > > pointer value [-Werror=address-of-packed-member] > > 768 | cur_msl = &mcfg->memsegs[msl_idx]; > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Snippet of build after fix > > ..lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memory.c: In function ‘remap_segment’: > > ..lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memory.c:685:9: warning: taking address > > of packed member of ‘struct rte_mem_config’ may result in an unaligned > > pointer value [-Waddress-of-packed-member] > > 685 | msl = &mcfg->memsegs[msl_idx]; > > > > Fixing these would require an ABI break, because these are exposed > externally. Should we submit a deprecation notice for EAL? Ideally mem config and related structures would not be exposed in the API. Like lcore_config and eal_config it should be eal_private
