From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: fix compile by making sched struct
 visible
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 14:05:11 -0800
Message-ID: <20190110140511.51728db0@hermes.lan>
References: <20190110165051.4859-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, reshma.pattan@intel.com, cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com,
 thomas@monjalon.net
To: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pl1-f194.google.com (mail-pl1-f194.google.com
 [209.85.214.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E14861B738
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:05:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pl1-f194.google.com with SMTP id gn14so5772258plb.10
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 14:05:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20190110165051.4859-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:50:51 +0000
Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com> wrote:

> Although C compilation works with the struct rte_mbuf_sched
> declared inside the struct rte_mbuf namespace, C++ fails to
> compile. This fix moves the rte_mbuf_sched struct up to the
> global namespace, instead of declaring it inside the struct
> mbuf namespace.
> 
> The struct rte_mbuf_sched is being used on the stack in
> rte_mbuf_sched_get() and as a cast in _set(). For this
> reason, it must be exposed as an available type.
> 
> Fixes: 5d3f72100904 ("mbuf: implement generic format for sched field")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
> 
I believe this was done so that the compiler doesn't generate
bad code.

If you reference the mbuf to get the fields then each operation becomes
a load shift and mask operation to get to the bitfield.  But if they
are local then this is all done on a single register value.

Check the generated code.

One solution would be to move this into a private header file
where C++ won't find it.