Sure, I will investigate it. Just want to confirm the issue is in the
compiletime_assert() code as you mentioned and it is not in that line
of code that I cite in my last email. I managed to remedy this issue a
little bit by using -O1 instead of -O3 but still the optimized program
order is not exactly similar to the default source code order.
--Alireza
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/29/2015 08:46 AM, Alireza Haghdoost wrote:
>>>
>>> +struct all_io_list *get_all_io_list(int save_mask, size_t *sz)
>>> +{
>>> + struct all_io_list *rep;
>>> + struct thread_data *td;
>>> + size_t depth;
>>> + void *next;
>>> + int i, nr;
>>> +
>>> + compiletime_assert(sizeof(struct all_io_list) == 8,
>>> "all_io_list");
>>
>>
>>
>> I am getting compile time assertion failure on the following line of
>> code when I remove the optimization flag (-O3) in the Makefile. Is
>> this something expected ? I want to remove optimizations in order to
>> debug my code based on original source code line order not optimized
>> code order.
>
>
> Yeah it's expected, but should be fixed. I just haven't looked into why the
> compiletime_assert() fails if optimizations are disabled. It really
> shouldn't, since the size of the struct is still 8 when disabled. So it's a
> bug in the compiletime_assert() code. Feel free to poke at it :-)
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
