> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nelio Laranjeiro > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 2:16 PM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]> > Cc: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Doherty, Declan > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Gaetan Rivet > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] crypto: fix pedantic compilation > errors > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:54:22PM +0000, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Nelio Laranjeiro [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 12:43 PM > > > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Doherty, Declan > > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Gaetan Rivet > > > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] crypto: fix pedantic compilation errors > > > > > > Hi Pablo, > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:49:39AM +0000, De Lara Guarch, Pablo > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Nelio Laranjeiro [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 10:03 AM > > > > > To: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Doherty, Declan > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > Cc: [email protected]; Gaetan Rivet <[email protected]>; De > Lara > > > > > Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] crypto: fix pedantic compilation errors > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h > > > > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ struct rte_crypto_op { > > > > > rte_iova_t phys_addr; > > > > > /**< physical address of crypto operation */ > > > > > > > > > > - RTE_STD_C11 > > > > > + __extension__ > > > > > > > > Hi Nelio, > > > > > > > > Since RTE_STD_C11 is basically __extension__ when > __STDC_VERSION__ > > > is > > > > not defined, Is this forcing __extension__ to be used no matter what? > > > (even if C11 is not supported). > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > > Right, and are we sure that this is OK? If C11 is supported, do we > > still want extension? > > Having an array with an empty size inside a union does not make part of > any standard, it is an extension of the language.
If no other objections from the community: Acked-by: Pablo de Lara <[email protected]># > > Regards, > > -- > Nélio Laranjeiro > 6WIND
