On 04/09/2015 02:19 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:06:47PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >> On 04/09/2015 11:33 AM, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote: >>> On 08/04/2015 19:26, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>> On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:07:21 +0100 >>>> Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Currently, the target/rules to build combined libraries is different >>>>> than the one to build individual libraries. >>>>> >>>>> By removing the combined library option as a build configuration option >>>>> we simplify the build pocess by having a single point for >>>>> linking/archiving >>>>> libraries in DPDK. >>>>> >>>>> This patch removes CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIB build config option and >>>>> removes the makefiles associated with building a combined library. >>>>> >>>>> The CONFIG_RTE_LIBNAME config option is kept as it will be use to >>>>> always generate a linker script that acts as a single combined library. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy >>>>> <sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com> >>>> No. We use combined library and it greatly simplfies the application >>>> linking process. >>>> >>> After all the opposition this patch had in v2, I did explain the current >>> issues >>> (see http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-March/015366.html ) and this was >>> the agreed solution. >>> >>> As I mention in the cover letter (also see patch 2/5), building DPDK >>> (after applying this patch series) will always generate a very simple >>> linker script that behaves as a combined library. >>> I encourage you to apply this patch series and try to build your app >>> (which links against combined lib). >>> Your app should build without problem unless I messed up somewhere and it >>> needs fixing. >> Is it possible to generate a pkgconfig file (dpdk.pc) that contains all of >> the setting needed to compile and link with dpdk? That will greatly >> simplify usage. >> >> A linker script is just too esoteric. >> > Why esoteric? We're not talking about a linker script in the sense of a > binary > layout file, we're talking about a prewritten/generated libdpdk_core.so that > contains linker directives to include the appropriate libraries. You link it > just like you do any other library, but it lets you ignore how they are broken > up.
You mean DT_NEEDED? That's great, but it shouldn't be called a linker script. > We could certainly do a pkg-config file, but I don't think thats any more > adventageous than this solution. It solves more problems -- cflags etc. Of course having the right DT_NEEDED is a good thing regardless.
