On 6/27/16, 7:58 AM, "dev on behalf of Wiles, Keith" <dev-bounces at dpdk.org on behalf of keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
> >On 6/27/16, 3:46 AM, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:54:12AM -0500, Keith Wiles wrote: >>> Latest clang compiler 3.8.0 on latest update of Ubuntu >>> creates a few more warnings on -Warray-bounds and extra >>> () around 'if' expressions. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles <keith.wiles at intel.com> >>> --- >>> app/test-pmd/Makefile | 3 +++ >>> app/test/Makefile | 3 +++ >>> drivers/net/bonding/Makefile | 4 ++++ >>> drivers/net/fm10k/Makefile | 2 ++ >>> drivers/net/i40e/Makefile | 2 ++ >>> lib/librte_cmdline/Makefile | 6 ++++++ >>> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 8 ++++++++ >>> 7 files changed, 28 insertions(+) >>> >>All the fixes in this patch seem to be just disabling the compiler warnings, >>which >>should really be the last resort in cases like this. Can some of the issues be >>fixed by actually fixing the issues in the code? > >I did look at the code to fix the problem, because I could not see one: > >/work/home/rkwiles/projects/intel/dpdk/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c:3357:2140: >error: array index 3 is past the end of the array (which contains 3 elements) >[-Werror,-Warray-bounds] > if (!__extension__ ({ size_t __s1_len, __s2_len; (__builtin_constant_p > (res->proto) && __builtin_constant_p ("ip") && (__s1_len = __builtin_strlen > (res->proto), __s2_len = __builtin_strlen ("ip"), (!((size_t)(const void > *)((res->proto) + 1) - (size_t)(const void *)(res->proto) == 1) || __s1_len > >= 4) && (!((size_t)(const void *)(("ip") + 1) - (size_t)(const void *)("ip") > == 1) || __s2_len >= 4)) ? __builtin_strcmp (res->proto, "ip") : > (__builtin_constant_p (res->proto) && ((size_t)(const void *)((res->proto) + > 1) - (size_t)(const void *)(res->proto) == 1) && (__s1_len = __builtin_strlen > (res->proto), __s1_len < 4) ? (__builtin_constant_p ("ip") && ((size_t)(const > void *)(("ip") + 1) - (size_t)(const void *)("ip") == 1) ? __builtin_strcmp > (res->proto, "ip") : (__extension__ ({ const unsigned char *__s2 = (const > unsigned char *) (const char *) ("ip"); int __result = (((const unsigned char > *) (const char *) (res->proto))[0] - __s2[0]); if (__s1_len > 0 && __result > == 0) { __result = (((const unsigned char *) (const char *) (res->proto))[1] > - __s2[1]); if (__s1_len > 1 && __result == 0) { __result = (((const unsigned > char *) (const char *) (res->proto))[2] - __s2[2]); if (__s1_len > 2 && > __result == 0) __result = (((const unsigned char *) (const char *) > (res->proto))[3] - __s2[3]); } } __result; }))) : (__builtin_constant_p > ("ip") && ((size_t)(const void *)(("ip") + 1) - (size_t)(const void *)("ip") > == 1) && (__s2_len = __builtin_strlen ("ip"), __s2_len < 4) ? > (__builtin_constant_p (res->proto) && ((size_t)(const void *)((res->proto) + > 1) - (size_t)(const void *)(res->proto) == 1) ? __builtin_strcmp (res->proto, > "ip") : (- (__extension__ ({ const unsigned char *__s2 = (const unsigned char > *) (const char *) (res->proto); int __result = (((const unsigned char *) > (const char *) ("ip"))[0] - __s2[0]); if (__s2_len > 0 && __result == 0) { > __result = (((const unsigned char *) (const char *) ("ip"))[1] - __s2[1]); if > (__s2_len > 1 && __result == 0) { __result = (((const unsigned char *) (const > char *) ("ip"))[2] - __s2[2]); if (__s2_len > 2 && __result == 0) __result = > (((const unsigned char *) (const char *) ("ip"))[3] - __s2[3]); } } __result; > })))) : __builtin_strcmp (res->proto, "ip")))); })) { > >Here is the line of code for that one: > if (!strcmp(res->proto, "ip")) { > >The ?Wno-parenthese-equality problem gives the output here: > >/work/home/rkwiles/projects/intel/dpdk/lib/librte_cmdline/cmdline_cirbuf.c:288:19: > error: equality comparison with extraneous parentheses >[-Werror,-Wparentheses-equality] > if (((cbuf)->len == 0)) { > >The line is: > > if (CIRBUF_IS_EMPTY(cbuf)) { > >This one is in cmdline_cirbuf.h, which can be changed, but I do not think we >need to remove the parenthese. > >I will look at some of other solution, so I rejected the patch. I found the problem to the compile errors I am seeing with building with clang and shared libraries. The x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/string2.h header file if getting included from string.h, but this would be mean __GNUC__ is defined and this is the clang compiler. After much investigation it turns out ?ccache? is the problem here. If ccache is enabled with clang builds the __GNUC__ is defined some how, I never did find the location. Just a warning it appears ?ccache? for caching object files is not compatible with DPDK builds ? in all cases. > > >> >>/Bruce >> > > > >