On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 3:49 PM Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> wrote: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2024 15.17 > > > > 14/06/2024 16:32, David Marchand: > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 4:51 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 20/03/2024 22:33, Tyler Retzlaff: > > > > > Use newly introduced __rte_constant(e) macro instead of directly using > > > > > __builtin_constant_p() allowing mempool to be built by MSVC. > > > > > > > > Does it mean we should enable mempool build? > > > > If yes, please send a v2. > > > > > > I guess now it is possible, as I merged some other patches on mempool > > > from Stephen that were for MSVC. > > > Tyler, can you send a v2 so it passes through the CI? > > > > I tried a retest last week and there is this failure on Ubuntu 24.04 > > that I don't manage to reproduce locally: > > > > /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/string_fortified.h:29:10: error: > > argument 2 > > null where non-null expected [-Werror=nonnull] > > 29 | return __builtin___memcpy_chk (__dest, __src, __len, > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 30 | __glibc_objsize0 (__dest)); > > | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/string_fortified.h:29:10: note: in a call > > to built-in function '__builtin___memcpy_chk' > > In function 'memcpy', > > inlined from 'pcapng_add_option' at ../lib/pcapng/rte_pcapng.c:131:2, > > pcapng_add_option() in rte_pcapng.c has memcpy() on line 132 [1] (and has a > fix for this error, by comparing len > 0 before calling memcpy()); older > versions had memcpy() on line 131, so the CI must be building with an older > version of rte_pcapng.c. > > [1]: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v24.07-rc1/source/lib/pcapng/rte_pcapng.c#L132 > [2]: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v24.03/source/lib/pcapng/rte_pcapng.c#L131
This is likely the reason. Looking at the report: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2024-June/717951.html _Testing issues RETEST #1_ Submitter: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla at linux.microsoft.com> Date: Wednesday, March 20 2024 21:33:36 DPDK git baseline: Repo:dpdk Branch: master CommitID:80ecef6d1f71fcebc0a51d7cabc51f73ee142ff2 $ git describe --contains 80ecef6d1f71fcebc0a51d7cabc51f73ee142ff2 v24.03-rc3^0 >From the discussions on the retest mechanism, I understand we need to ask for a rebase. I sent a new retest. Let's see... -- David Marchand
