On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:52 PM Medvedkin, Vladimir
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

+
+#define        ZMM_SIZE        (sizeof(__x86_zmm_t))
+#define        ZMM_MASK        (ZMM_SIZE - 1)

Macros in a public header need a RTE_ prefix + this is x86 specific,
then RTE_X86_.

Looking at the whole applied series:
$ git grep -lw ZMM_SIZE
lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h
$ git grep -lw ZMM_MASK
lib/librte_eal/x86/include/rte_vect.h

So I wonder if we need to export it or we can instead just #undef
after the struct definition.

I think it's better to undef it

Even if you undef the macro, please still prefix it.
This is to avoid conflicts with macros defined before including this
rte_vect.h header.

quoted

quoted

+
+typedef union __rte_x86_zmm  {
+       __x86_zmm_t      z;
+       ymm_t    y[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(ymm_t)];
+       xmm_t    x[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(xmm_t)];
+       uint8_t  u8[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(uint8_t)];
+       uint16_t u16[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(uint16_t)];
+       uint32_t u32[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(uint32_t)];
+       uint64_t u64[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(uint64_t)];
+       double   pd[ZMM_SIZE / sizeof(double)];
+} __rte_aligned(ZMM_SIZE) __rte_x86_zmm_t;

I don't understand this forced alignment statement.
Would not natural alignment be enough, since all fields in this union
have the same size?

Some compilers won't align this union
https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-March/159591.html

Ok, interesting, I will try to keep in mind.


-- 
David Marchand