mbox series

[v2,0/2] gcc build fix

Message ID 20201127101514.47329-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series gcc build fix | expand

Message

Ruifeng Wang Nov. 27, 2020, 10:15 a.m. UTC
This series fixed issues found when building project
with Gcc '-O0' option.

Ruifeng Wang (2):
  eal/arm: fix gcc build for optimization level 0
  net/igc: fix gcc build for optimization level 0

 drivers/net/igc/base/meson.build           | 3 ++-
 lib/librte_eal/arm/include/rte_atomic_64.h | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Thomas Monjalon Nov. 27, 2020, 1:35 p.m. UTC | #1
27/11/2020 11:15, Ruifeng Wang:
> This series fixed issues found when building project
> with Gcc '-O0' option.
> 
> Ruifeng Wang (2):
>   eal/arm: fix gcc build for optimization level 0
>   net/igc: fix gcc build for optimization level 0

No comment on the v2?
Ruifeng, why nobody was Cc'ed? You don't want reviews?

I am not going to accept such last minute fix
if there is no strong proof this v2 is good.
Ruifeng Wang Nov. 27, 2020, 2:08 p.m. UTC | #2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 9:36 PM
> To: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>; jerinj@marvell.com;
> bruce.richardson@intel.com; ferruh.yigit@intel.com; Vimal Chungath
> <vcchunga@amazon.com>; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
> konstantin.ananyev@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] gcc build fix
> 
> 27/11/2020 11:15, Ruifeng Wang:
> > This series fixed issues found when building project with Gcc '-O0'
> > option.
> >
> > Ruifeng Wang (2):
> >   eal/arm: fix gcc build for optimization level 0
> >   net/igc: fix gcc build for optimization level 0
> 
> No comment on the v2?
> Ruifeng, why nobody was Cc'ed? You don't want reviews?

Just used get-maintainer.sh to get Cc list. I should have added more people.
> 
> I am not going to accept such last minute fix if there is no strong proof this v2
> is good.

v2 1/2 patch has issue on earlier version Clang (eg. clang-6).
I think we should continue with v1 approach.
>