| Message ID | 20170525174246.GD2820@ovn.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On 25 May 2017 at 10:42, Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:02:15PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: >> Clang 4.0 complains: >> >> ../tests/test-hash.c:160:16: error: taking address of packed member 'b' of >> class or structure 'offset_ovs_u128' may result in an unaligned pointer value >> [-Werror,-Waddress-of-packed-member] >> in0 = &in0_data.b; >> >> Rework the 128-bit hash test to have a separate function for setting >> bits in the 32-bit offset u128 structure. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joe@ovn.org> > > How about something like this, to reduce code duplication? I have not > tested it with Clang 4.0. > > diff --git a/tests/test-hash.c b/tests/test-hash.c > index d1beead36ed5..f02f0218c71f 100644 > --- a/tests/test-hash.c > +++ b/tests/test-hash.c > @@ -153,14 +153,13 @@ check_hash_bytes128(void (*hash)(const void *, size_t, uint32_t, ovs_u128 *), > OVS_PACKED(struct offset_ovs_u128 { > uint32_t a; > ovs_u128 b; > - }) in0_data; > - ovs_u128 *in0, in1; > + }) in0; > + ovs_u128 in1; > ovs_u128 out0, out1; > > - in0 = &in0_data.b; > - set_bit128(in0, i, n_bits); > set_bit128(&in1, i, n_bits); > - hash(in0, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); > + in0.b = in1; > + hash(&in0.b, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); > hash(&in1, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out1); > if (!ovs_u128_equals(out0, out1)) { > printf("%s hash not the same for non-64 aligned data " Thanks, this looks like a much better approach and it satisfies clang 4.0. Will you propose this formally or shall I? The 256B version needs a slight variation on this as well.
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 01:18:21PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: > On 25 May 2017 at 10:42, Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:02:15PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: > >> Clang 4.0 complains: > >> > >> ../tests/test-hash.c:160:16: error: taking address of packed member 'b' of > >> class or structure 'offset_ovs_u128' may result in an unaligned pointer value > >> [-Werror,-Waddress-of-packed-member] > >> in0 = &in0_data.b; > >> > >> Rework the 128-bit hash test to have a separate function for setting > >> bits in the 32-bit offset u128 structure. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joe@ovn.org> > > > > How about something like this, to reduce code duplication? I have not > > tested it with Clang 4.0. > > > > diff --git a/tests/test-hash.c b/tests/test-hash.c > > index d1beead36ed5..f02f0218c71f 100644 > > --- a/tests/test-hash.c > > +++ b/tests/test-hash.c > > @@ -153,14 +153,13 @@ check_hash_bytes128(void (*hash)(const void *, size_t, uint32_t, ovs_u128 *), > > OVS_PACKED(struct offset_ovs_u128 { > > uint32_t a; > > ovs_u128 b; > > - }) in0_data; > > - ovs_u128 *in0, in1; > > + }) in0; > > + ovs_u128 in1; > > ovs_u128 out0, out1; > > > > - in0 = &in0_data.b; > > - set_bit128(in0, i, n_bits); > > set_bit128(&in1, i, n_bits); > > - hash(in0, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); > > + in0.b = in1; > > + hash(&in0.b, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); > > hash(&in1, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out1); > > if (!ovs_u128_equals(out0, out1)) { > > printf("%s hash not the same for non-64 aligned data " > > Thanks, this looks like a much better approach and it satisfies clang > 4.0. Will you propose this formally or shall I? The 256B version needs > a slight variation on this as well. I was hoping that you would propose it formally.
On 25 May 2017 at 13:54, Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 01:18:21PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: >> On 25 May 2017 at 10:42, Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote: >> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 04:02:15PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote: >> >> Clang 4.0 complains: >> >> >> >> ../tests/test-hash.c:160:16: error: taking address of packed member 'b' of >> >> class or structure 'offset_ovs_u128' may result in an unaligned pointer value >> >> [-Werror,-Waddress-of-packed-member] >> >> in0 = &in0_data.b; >> >> >> >> Rework the 128-bit hash test to have a separate function for setting >> >> bits in the 32-bit offset u128 structure. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joe@ovn.org> >> > >> > How about something like this, to reduce code duplication? I have not >> > tested it with Clang 4.0. >> > >> > diff --git a/tests/test-hash.c b/tests/test-hash.c >> > index d1beead36ed5..f02f0218c71f 100644 >> > --- a/tests/test-hash.c >> > +++ b/tests/test-hash.c >> > @@ -153,14 +153,13 @@ check_hash_bytes128(void (*hash)(const void *, size_t, uint32_t, ovs_u128 *), >> > OVS_PACKED(struct offset_ovs_u128 { >> > uint32_t a; >> > ovs_u128 b; >> > - }) in0_data; >> > - ovs_u128 *in0, in1; >> > + }) in0; >> > + ovs_u128 in1; >> > ovs_u128 out0, out1; >> > >> > - in0 = &in0_data.b; >> > - set_bit128(in0, i, n_bits); >> > set_bit128(&in1, i, n_bits); >> > - hash(in0, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); >> > + in0.b = in1; >> > + hash(&in0.b, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); >> > hash(&in1, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out1); >> > if (!ovs_u128_equals(out0, out1)) { >> > printf("%s hash not the same for non-64 aligned data " >> >> Thanks, this looks like a much better approach and it satisfies clang >> 4.0. Will you propose this formally or shall I? The 256B version needs >> a slight variation on this as well. > > I was hoping that you would propose it formally. OK, I can do that.
diff --git a/tests/test-hash.c b/tests/test-hash.c index d1beead36ed5..f02f0218c71f 100644 --- a/tests/test-hash.c +++ b/tests/test-hash.c @@ -153,14 +153,13 @@ check_hash_bytes128(void (*hash)(const void *, size_t, uint32_t, ovs_u128 *), OVS_PACKED(struct offset_ovs_u128 { uint32_t a; ovs_u128 b; - }) in0_data; - ovs_u128 *in0, in1; + }) in0; + ovs_u128 in1; ovs_u128 out0, out1; - in0 = &in0_data.b; - set_bit128(in0, i, n_bits); set_bit128(&in1, i, n_bits); - hash(in0, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); + in0.b = in1; + hash(&in0.b, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out0); hash(&in1, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out1); if (!ovs_u128_equals(out0, out1)) { printf("%s hash not the same for non-64 aligned data "