2015-04-13 10:52, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio: > On 09/04/2015 21:34, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 08:00:26PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> 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. > >> > > no, I don't mean DT_NEEDED, I mean a linker script, because thats what what > > sergio wrote is. > > > >>> 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. > >> > > Thats a good point, pkgconfig doesn't provide that additionally. Perhaps > > having > > both is the best solution. As for the DT_NEEDED issues, the earlier threads > > ennumerated all the problems that were being found with the way the > > libraries > > were organized (circular dependencies). > > > > Neil > I am not entirely sure of the conclusion of this thread. > > Are we happy with the current linker script solution as a replacement of > the combined lib? > Do we want to provide pkg-config file in addition or instead of linker > script?
Yes pkg-config should be an addition on top of shared/static split/combined libraries (or linker script). It should be an alternative to mk/rte.app.mk. > I think I will split the series as there seems to be no objections to > the patches related to DT_NEEDED entries. > I'll post a series for DT_NEEDED entries and another series for dealing > with the combined lib (once we get to an agreement). > > Does it sound reasonable? Yes good idea, thanks.
