Hi all, What about this patch?
It may be some network or mail client issue of me, so not sure this patch posted to mail list successful. If failed, I will re-post it later. Thanks, Michael On 2014/12/3 19:28, Michael Qiu wrote: > app/test-pmd/csumonly.c:84:5: error: "__BYTE_ORDER__" is not defined > app/test-pmd/csumonly.c:84:23: error: "__ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__" is not defined > > This because old gcc version, like 4.4.7, does not has these buildin macros. > > $ gcc -v > Using built-in specs. > Target: x86_64-redhat-linux > ... > gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-4) (GCC) > > $ echo | gcc -dM -E -| grep "LITTLE" > (none) > > In this situation, we should back to use the macros defined in > <endian.h> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Qiu <michael.qiu at intel.com> > --- > app/test-pmd/csumonly.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c > index 6f43761..3fa81a2 100644 > --- a/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c > +++ b/app/test-pmd/csumonly.c > @@ -81,7 +81,13 @@ > > /* we cannot use htons() from arpa/inet.h due to name conflicts, and we > * cannot use rte_cpu_to_be_16() on a constant in a switch/case */ > -#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__ > +#ifdef __BYTE_ORDER__ > +#define LITTLE_ENDIAN_CHECK (__BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__) > +#else > +#define LITTLE_ENDIAN_CHECK (__BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN) > +#endif > + > +#if LITTLE_ENDIAN_CHECK > #define _htons(x) ((uint16_t)((((x) & 0x00ffU) << 8) | (((x) & 0xff00U) >> > 8))) > #else > #define _htons(x) (x)
