David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 6:14 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 29/06/2019 13:58, David Marchand:
> > Special mention for rte_mbuf_data_addr_default():
> >
> > There is either a bug or a (not yet understood) issue with gcc.
> > gcc won't drop this inline when unused and rte_mbuf_data_addr_default()
> > calls rte_mbuf_buf_addr() which itself is experimental.
> > This results in a build warning when not accepting experimental apis
> > from sources just including rte_mbuf.h.
> >
> > For this specific case, we hide the call to rte_mbuf_buf_addr() under
> > the ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API flag.
> [...]
> > -static inline char * __rte_experimental
> > -rte_mbuf_data_addr_default(struct rte_mbuf *mb)
> > +__rte_experimental
> > +static inline char *
> > +rte_mbuf_data_addr_default(struct rte_mbuf *mb __rte_unused)
> > {
> > + /* gcc complains about calling this experimental function even
> > + * when not using it. Hide it with ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API.
> > + */
> > +#ifdef ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API
> > return rte_mbuf_buf_addr(mb, mb->pool) + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM;
> > +#else
> > + return NULL;
> > +#endif
> > }
>
> Doxygen is confused by having __rte_unused at the end:
>
> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h:876: warning:
> argument 'mb' of command @param is not found in the argument list of
> rte_mbuf_data_addr_default(struct rte_mbuf *mb __rte_unused)
> lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h:889: warning:
> The following parameters of
> rte_mbuf_data_addr_default(struct rte_mbuf *mb __rte_unused)
> are not documented:
> parameter '__rte_unused'
>
> I move __rte_unused at the beginning while merging.
>
> Indeed.
> Thanks for catching and fixing.
>
> Consequently, could we have the documentation (html only?) generated in the
> CI if it is not too time
> consuming.
> WDYT Aaron, Michael?
Just as a check that it will generate? I think it's a good idea.
I am thinking that having it uploaded somewhere might be more involved,
but not sure.
