From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto/scheduler: fix build
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 15:26:00 +0200
Message-ID: <2291044.izmqMtvmdQ@xps>
References: <20170709094416.15045-1-jblunck@infradead.org>
 <1582621.mDe9fsxt3G@xps>
 <CALe+Z02_taVy7kyeWax_Yj3VXLAo1ooq8nP7TT8Tb64iPMLceQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FB858CB
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun,  9 Jul 2017 15:26:02 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <CALe+Z02_taVy7kyeWax_Yj3VXLAo1ooq8nP7TT8Tb64iPMLceQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

09/07/2017 12:43, Jan Blunck:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > 09/07/2017 11:44, Jan Blunck:
> >> Fixes 4c07e0552f0a ("crypto/scheduler: add multicore scheduling mode")
> >>
> >> drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c: In function 'scheduler_stop':
> >> drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c:286:2: error: 'for' loop
> >>  initial declarations are only allowed in C99 or C11 mode
> >>   for (uint16_t i = 0; i < sched_ctx->nb_wc; i++)
> >>   ^
> >
> > I wonder why I have not spotted it.
> > What is your compiler? which version?
> 
> This is with Debian Jessie:
> 
> gcc version 4.9.2 (Debian 4.9.2-10)

OK, so I could update the title to "fix build with old gcc" ?

And add in the log that it has been seen with gcc 4.9.2.

Do you agree?

PS: I am testing with gcc 7.1.