On 25 May 2017 at 10:42, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:02:15PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: >> Clang 4.0 complains: >> >> ../tests/test-hash.c:160:16: error: taking address of packed member 'b' of >> class or structure 'offset_ovs_u128' may result in an unaligned pointer value >> [-Werror,-Waddress-of-packed-member] >> in0 = &in0_data.b; >> >> Rework the 128-bit hash test to have a separate function for setting >> bits in the 32-bit offset u128 structure. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <[email protected]> > > How about something like this, to reduce code duplication? I have not > tested it with Clang 4.0. > > diff --git a/tests/test-hash.c b/tests/test-hash.c > index d1beead36ed5..f02f0218c71f 100644 > --- a/tests/test-hash.c > +++ b/tests/test-hash.c > @@ -153,14 +153,13 @@ check_hash_bytes128(void (*hash)(const void *, size_t, > uint32_t, ovs_u128 *), > OVS_PACKED(struct offset_ovs_u128 { > uint32_t a; > ovs_u128 b; > - }) in0_data; > - ovs_u128 *in0, in1; > + }) in0; > + ovs_u128 in1; > ovs_u128 out0, out1; > > - in0 = &in0_data.b; > - set_bit128(in0, i, n_bits); > set_bit128(&in1, i, n_bits); > - hash(in0, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); > + in0.b = in1; > + hash(&in0.b, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); > hash(&in1, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out1); > if (!ovs_u128_equals(out0, out1)) { > printf("%s hash not the same for non-64 aligned data "
Thanks, this looks like a much better approach and it satisfies clang 4.0. Will you propose this formally or shall I? The 256B version needs a slight variation on this as well. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
