[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-06 Thread Neil Horman
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:21:50PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:15:46PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > With a single archive, you get everything you build even if you don't need > > it. > > Right, I was trying to avoid that for people who specifically didn't want it, >

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Neil Horman
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 04:52:40PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 07:28:33 -0400 > Neil Horman wrote: > > > I.e. you can ship your pmd's > > pacakged separately from your core > > I was hoping only the application API would be "stable" > As we know from Linux kernel, inter

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 07:28:33 -0400 Neil Horman wrote: > I.e. you can ship your pmd's > pacakged separately from your core I was hoping only the application API would be "stable" As we know from Linux kernel, internal API's will never remain stable.

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Neil Horman
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:17:13AM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 07:32:34AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > This makes good sense to me. A single archive is just easier in the static > > > > case, since the resulting binary will strip out unused code anyway, and > > multip

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Matthew Hall
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:15:46PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > With a single archive, you get everything you build even if you don't need > it. Right, I was trying to avoid that for people who specifically didn't want it, if there are any... I'm not one of them. > But presumably if you're build

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:24:51PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:04:20PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library > > > here? > > > Is it just t

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Matthew Hall
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 07:32:34AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > This makes good sense to me. A single archive is just easier in the static > case, since the resulting binary will strip out unused code anyway, and > multiple > libraries are needed in the shared case so that we don't wind up havin

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Matthew Hall
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:27:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > The proposal is to always build single (combined) lib AND to build separated > libs in case of shared libraries. > For static library: only one single (combined) static library. In the static case, this won't be backward compatible

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Matthew Hall
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:15:20AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > We need to simplify build options. So I'm fine to remove COMBINE_LIBS option > to always enable it. > About making only one single static library, I think it's a good idea if > it brings a real code simplification. > > So the concl

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-03 09:10, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:15:20AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2014-10-02 13:04, Matthew Hall: > > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library > > >

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-02 13:04, Matthew Hall: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library > > here? > > Is it just to ease application linking operations? If so, it almost seems > > to me > > that we should abandon

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:15:20AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2014-10-02 13:04, Matthew Hall: > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library > > > here? > > > Is it just to ease application linking

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Neil Horman
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:27:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2014-10-03 09:10, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:15:20AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2014-10-02 13:04, Matthew Hall: > > > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > > Just

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-03 Thread Neil Horman
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:31:10AM +0100, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:24:51PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:04:20PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > Just out of curiosity,

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-02 Thread Neil Horman
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:10:55PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:24:51PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > This seems somewhat irrelevant to the patch. The default configuration is > > already the way you want it to be, shared library performance is actually > > very > > clo

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-02 Thread Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
When building DPDK with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y, the result is not the expected behavior. - It does link the combine library using LD instead of CC which results in application linking errors. - It creates both individual libraries and combine library, then linking applications against

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-02 Thread Neil Horman
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:04:20PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library > > here? > > Is it just to ease application linking operations? If so, it almost seems > > to

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-02 Thread Matthew Hall
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:24:51PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > This seems somewhat irrelevant to the patch. The default configuration is > already the way you want it to be, shared library performance is actually very > close to static performance, and yes, people can choose how they want to > bu

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-02 Thread Neil Horman
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:56:22PM +0100, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote: > When building DPDK with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y, the result is not > the expected behavior. > > - It does link the combine library using LD instead of CC which results > in application linking errors. > > - It cr

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y

2014-10-02 Thread Matthew Hall
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library here? > Is it just to ease application linking operations? If so, it almost seems to > me > that we should abandon the individual linking method and just use this