On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:19:37 -0500 Scott Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 11:12 AM Stephen Hemminger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 01:13:38 -0500 > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > +#ifdef RTE_CC_GCC > > > + /* Suppress GCC -Wmaybe-uninitialized false positive. No > > > assembly/runtime impacts. */ > > > + asm volatile("" : "+m" (psd_hdr)); > > > +#endif > > > > > > > Maybe rte_compiler_barrier() will do same thing? > > Agreed it feels like a compiler bug but looking for advice if I'm > missing something :) > > My initial concern with rte_compiler_barrier is its a general barrier > which may have broader impacts on > optimizations and compiled code. Will that be an issue in this case? I > wasn't sure and the approach > in the patch is targeted at a specific variable and assembly from > clang/gcc was the same. I will > introduce a macro to make it cleaner and I can replace it with > rte_compiler_barrier if preferred. Maybe try with -fanalyzer and it might tell you more. I suspect some of the aliasing setting are causing issues. Some drivers are turning on no-strict-aliasing
