[PATCH v2 2/4] bitset: fix build for GCC without experimental API

[Morten Brørup]

> From: David Marchand [mailto:david.marchand at redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 October 2024 17.37
> 
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 4:14 PM Mattias Rönnblom
> <hofors at lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-10-16 13:38, David Marchand wrote:
> > > For a reason similar to the change on bitops header, hide bitset
> > > implementation relying on experimental API.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 99a1197647d8 ("eal: add bitset type")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> > > Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com>
> > > ---
> > >   lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h | 123
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 123 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
> b/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
> > > index 74c643a72a..8ae8425fc2 100644
> > > --- a/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
> > > +++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_bitset.h
> > > @@ -255,7 +255,13 @@ __rte_experimental
> > >   static inline bool
> > >   rte_bitset_test(const uint64_t *bitset, size_t bit_num)
> > >   {
> > > +#ifdef ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API
> > >       return __RTE_BITSET_DELEGATE(rte_bit_test, bitset, bit_num);
> > > +#else
> > > +     RTE_SET_USED(bitset);
> > > +     RTE_SET_USED(bit_num);
> > > +     return false;
> >
> > This is no RTE_VERIFY(0) here, because this is just dummy code, that
> > will never be run. Is that correct?
> 
> Adding a RTE_VERIFY(false) is an interesting idea.
> It is not supposed to be run, indeed.

Great idea.

> 
> Do you prefer I respin with this?

No need.
Instead, create a ticket in Bugzilla so RTE_VERIFY(false) goes in everywhere there is dummy code, not just here.

> 
> 
> --
> David Marchand