[PATCH 1/2] eal: RTE_PTR_ADD/SUB char* for compiler optimizations
Bruce Richardson
bruce.richardson at intel.com
Mon Jan 12 10:14:09 CET 2026
On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 07:59:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 10:00:32 -0500
> scott.k.mitch1 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > +#define RTE_PTR_ADD(ptr, x) \
> > + (__extension__ ({ \
> > + /* Diagnostics suppressed for internal macro operations only. \
> > + * Compiler type-checks all _Generic branches even when unselected, \
> > + * triggering warnings with no external impact. */ \
> > + __rte_diagnostic_push \
> > + __rte_diagnostic_ignored_wcast_qual \
> > + _Pragma("GCC diagnostic ignored \"-Wconditional-type-mismatch\"") \
> > + /* Uses uintptr_t arithmetic for integer types (API compatibility), \
> > + * and char* arithmetic for pointer types (enables optimization). */ \
> > + __auto_type _ptr_result = _Generic((ptr), \
> > + unsigned long long: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + long long: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + unsigned long: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + long: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + unsigned int: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + int: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + unsigned short: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + short: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + unsigned char: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + signed char: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + char: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + _Bool: ((void *)((uintptr_t)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + /* Ternary with null pointer constant: per C11, if one operand \
> > + * is a null pointer constant and the other is a pointer, the \
> > + * result type is qualified per the pointer operand, normalizing \
> > + * const T* to const void* and T* to void*. */ \
> > + default: _Generic((1 ? (ptr) : (void *)0), \
> > + const void *: ((void *)((const char *)(ptr) + (x))), \
> > + default: ((void *)((char *)(ptr) + (x))) \
> > + ) \
> > + ); \
> > + __rte_diagnostic_pop \
> > + _ptr_result; \
> > + }))
>
> Good idea in general but the macro is way to big and therefore hard to read.
> The comments could be outside the macro.
>
> Any code that adds dependency on a pragma to work is brittle and likely
> to allow bugs through. Please figure out how to do it without.
Do we need to handle the case of users calling RTE_PTR_ADD with integer
values? Using this macro to essentially cast an integer to pointer seems
strange. Even if it's occasionally used, I think keeping things simple and
just globally changing to use "char *" is a better approach.
The only case where I'd consider trying to keep compatibility using
uintptr_t is if the pointer parameter is a volatile one. Even then, we can
probably handle that as with the "const" modifier, right?
/Bruce
More information about the dev
mailing list