2015-12-09 15:32, Wiles, Keith:
> On 12/9/15, 8:59 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
>
> >2015-12-09 14:39, Wiles, Keith:
> >> I am having a problem with ?make install T=? command as I was using it
> >> before. I would normally build a x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc, clang and icc
> >> or a different config all together. Currently the ?make install T=? gives
> >> a warning message at the end of the build plus creates the
> >> x86_64-native-linuxapp-XXX directory. If I use the suggested ?make config
> >> T=? command this command create a directory ?build? with a .config file.
> >> The problem is this method does not allow me to have multiple builds at
> >> the same time.
> >>
> >> What is the suggested method to have multiple builds without installing
> >> into the local file system?
> >
> >The multiple build is not supported anymore. It was only building with
> >the default configuration.
> >If you want to test various builds, I suggest to use this script:
> > scripts/test-build.sh
> > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=cd31ca579c
>
> Having a build script is great, but it give me an error on building. The
> script does not have a ?help option and the unknown option is not very
> usefulas it does not explain the two option -jX and -s in that output
> message. I would have expected a bit more help instructions on using this
> command and adding a -h or ?help would be useful.
Please check.
There is a -h option.
> The error I get from the following command is: './scripts/test-build.sh
> x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc? building on a Ubuntu 15.10 with all patches. If I
> use ?make install T=x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc? this command builds correctly
> with the warning at the end.
[...]
> /work/home/rkwiles/projects/intel/dpdk/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci.c:
> In function \u2018pci_config_extended_tag\u2019:
> /work/home/rkwiles/projects/intel/dpdk/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci.c:505:2:
> error: ignoring return value of \u2018fgets\u2019, declared with attribute
> warn_unused_result [-Werror=unused-result]
> fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f);
> ^
It is a compilation error, not related to the script.
> >If you just want to compile, it is simple:
> > make config T=x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc O=my-gcc-build
> > make O=my-gcc-build
>
> IMO we have gone backwards in making DPDK easy to build. I agree using ?make
> install T=? may not be the best solution as ?install? implies we are
> installing the code. I agree not we should not try to build multiple
> configuration with one command, but we should be able to do ?make build
> T=x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc? to replace the ?make install T=? command. Now
> the developer only needs to type one command with to build a configuration
> and not two. If the developer includes the ?O=? option then the command
> should create that directory and build the configuration into that directory.
> For the 80% rule the ?O=? option should not be required.
The O= option is not required.
The new syntax is closer to the standard behaviour.
You just don't want to type "make config" because you are using a default
configuration.
> The ?make config T= O=? then ?make O=? series of commands are not required,
> even the ?config? keyword is not required and just an extra step we do not
> need. What does the ?config? target really add to the made other then
> creating the ?build? directory and a config file. I believe the ?build?
> directory should be dropped/removed all together and just require the ?T=?
> and/or the ?O=? if they really want to define a different output directory.
Between "make config" and "make" you can modify the configuration.
In the next release, "make config" will be wrapped by a "configure" script
which will allow to configure your target in one line.
So we will end up with:
./configure
make
make install
It may be weird to you but it is standard to others.
