On 10/2/2019 7:55 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Slava Ovsiienko
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 9:15
>> To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>; Raslan
>> Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com>; ferruh.yi...@intel.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix compilation issue with gcc
>> pragma
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 2:41
>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>
>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>; Raslan
>> Darawsheh
>>> <rasl...@mellanox.com>; ferruh.yi...@intel.com
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix compilation issue with
>>> gcc pragma
>>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 17:15:46 +0000
>>> Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 17:54
>>>>> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@mellanox.com>
>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>; Raslan
>>> Darawsheh
>>>>> <rasl...@mellanox.com>; ferruh.yi...@intel.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix compilation issue
>>>>> with gcc pragma
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 11:10:23 +0000 Viacheslav Ovsiienko
>>>>> <viachesl...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +#if defined(RTE_TOOLCHAIN_GCC) && (GCC_VERSION >= 40600)
>>>>> #pragma GCC
>>>>>> +diagnostic push
>>>>>> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wformat-nonliteral"
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> + /* Use safe format to check maximal buffer length. */
>>>>>> while (fscanf(file, format, ifname) == 1) { -#pragma GCC
>>>>>> diagnostic error "-Wformat-nonliteral"
>>>>>> +#if defined(RTE_TOOLCHAIN_GCC) && (GCC_VERSION >= 40600)
>>>>> #pragma GCC
>>>>>> +diagnostic pop #endif
>>>>>
>>>>> This is messy, is there not a better way to do this?
>>>>
>>>> At least I did not find one.
>>>>
>>>> The GCC compile-time format checking feature is nice in general and
>>>> it worth to be engaged. The legitimate fscanf() usage with variable
>>>> format parameter causes GCC to emit error/warning, so we should
>>>> suppress these ones for this single line. ICC does not emit warning
>>>> and does
>>> not recognize GCC pragmas.
>>>> Clang just does not recognize fscanf().
>>>>
>>>> Should we use "#ifndef __INTEL_COMPILER" (typical workaround for GCC
>>>> diagnostic pragma in DPDK)? I'm not sure, It is not completely correct.
>>>>
>>>> The alternative I see is to implement dedicated routine to read
>>>> words from the file, but it means more code and more run-time
>>>> resources. It seems not to be the right way to push compile-time
>>>> issues resolving to the
>>> run-time.
>>>>
>>>> Defining the macro is not relevant here because this is a single case.
>>>>
>>>> WBR, Slava
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are going to a lot of effort to solve a problem of interface name
>>> length which can not happen. The maximum interface name in linux and
>>> bsd is always 15 characters plus null.
>>
>> We just have a definition IF_NAMESIZE. If we have the definition - we should
>> follow, right?
>>
>>> Therefore there is no need to build a dynamic format string at all
>>> here. Or you could use the assignment allocation modifier so that the
>>> resulting string from fscanf was allocated.
>>
>> The allocation modifier has questionable compatibility either, does involve
>> implicit memory allocations and requires explicit free call.
>> It seems to be less robust than using a standard length modifier.
>>
>>>
>>> Could you try one of these instead.
>> It seems there is better solution - stringification, please see:
>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatche
>> s.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F60415%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cviacheslavo%40
>> mellanox.com%7Cfad3629b2e694dde62f908d746ffe45a%7Ca652971c7d2e4
>> d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C637055937198169033&sdata=vx
>> EXTvYh12PJdU9ZmlqAzIThILKmAG23r4OyKE0DBvU%3D&reserved=0
>> I like stringification not too much, but it seems there is the right place
>> to use
>> one.
+1, this is better than the pragma
But there is already 'RTE_STR' for stringify, can you please use it?
>
> Also, I would add something like this:
>
> assert(atol(STRINGIFY(IF_NAMESIZE)) == IF_NAMESIZE);
>
> to make sure IF_NAMESIZE is not defined like as "BASESIZE+1".
> What do you think ?
I think fscanf() will give a build error in that case, so may not need
assertion.
>
> WBR, Slava
>
