06/11/2018 14:31, Jerin Jacob: > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > 06/11/2018 12:45, Jerin Jacob: > > > Some toolchain has fls() definition in string.h as argument type int, > > > which is conflicting uint32_t argument type. > > > > > > /export/dpdk.org/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_reciprocal.c:47:19: > > > error: conflicting types for ‘fls’ > > > static inline int fls(uint32_t x) > > > ^~~ > > > > > > /opt/marvell-tools-201/aarch64-marvell-elf/include/strings.h:59:6: > > > note: previous declaration of ‘fls’ was here > > > int fls(int) __pure2; > > > > > > FreeBSD string.h also has fls() with argument as int type. > > > https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=fls&sektion=3 > > > > > > Fixing the conflict by renaming internal function as __fls > > > > Why not rte_fls? Would it be more future proof? > > Agreed. There are two instance of fls in dpdk code base now, > > 1) lib/librte_eal/common/rte_reciprocal.c takes uint32_t > 2) drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_ethdev.c has macro, used with uint16_t as > argument. > > Should we make it as macro or follow libc prototype where argument is > int. > > Something like below, > > static inline int > rte_fls(int x) > { > return (x == 0) ? 0 : sizeof(x) * 8 - __builtin_clz(x); > }
I tend to think that using uint32_t parameter would be more useful in DPDK.