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

[Mattias Rönnblom]

On 2024-10-16 17:42, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> 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.
> 

No experimental function is supposed to be invoked, if 
ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API is not set, right? So RTE_VERIFY(), or its 
compile-time equivalent, should be in every such function, not just the 
broken ones.

>>
>>
>> --
>> David Marchand
>