Hi, Considering the fact that there are many developers using c++, I totally persuade/agree with the addition of c++ functionality, and thanks to Thomas's guidelines it won't create any overhead in usage.
All the Best, --Hamid On 1/14/14, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote: > Hello Venky, > > 14/01/2014 14:22, Venkatesan, Venky: >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon >> > 14/01/2014 08:02, Daniel Kan: >> > > I already have existing makefiles for my current application. I would >> > > like to integrate dpdk into the application. ?m wondering if there >> > > is >> > > any benefit to use dpdk?s makefiles instead of using your own >> > > makefile >> > > and linking against the library (e.g. libintel_dpdk.a). Thanks. >> > >> > DPDK makefiles have 2 benefits: >> > - provide a framework >> > - automatically set CFLAGS and LDFLAGS according to your configuration >> > >> > If you don't need a framework, I think it's better to extract >> > compilation >> > flags with something like pkg-config. >> > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/pkg-config >> > A patch for a such feature would be welcome :) >> >> One other thing to think about - as we add more functionality into DPDK >> (e.g. new libraries for other packet functions), we integrate them into >> the DPDK framework. If you extract compilation flags and setup your own >> makefile, you would have to do this re-integration every time you want to >> pick up a new release. The same applies to newer files added etc. etc. >> That is the downside. > > I disagree. > If the Makefile of the application, use a DPDK script or pkg-config to read > > the flags from a generated file, the integration is done only once. > This guide explains the logic and how to implement it: > http://people.freedesktop.org/~dbn/pkg-config-guide.html > > -- > Thomas >
