On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:57:10PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-12-02 22:23, Jerin Jacob: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:40:13PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2015-12-02 20:04, Jerin Jacob: > > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:13:51PM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote: > > > > > On 2 December 2015 at 18:39, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at > > > > > caviumnetworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > AND they include "rte_lpm.h"(it internally includes rte_vect.h) > > > > > > that lead to multiple definition and its not good. > > > > > > > > > > > But you will have similar issue since "typedef int32x4_t __m128i" > > > > > appears in both your patch and this header file. > > > > > > > > I just tested it, it won't break, back to back "typedef int32x4_t > > > > __m128i" > > > > is fine(unlike inline function). > > > > > > > > my intention to keep __m128i "as is" because changing the __m128i to > > > > rte_??? > > > > something would break the ABI. > > > > > > Isn't it already broken in 2.2? > > > > Does it mean, You would like to have rte_128i(or similar) kind of > > abstraction to represent 128bit SIMD variable in DPDK? > > If you are convinced that it is the best way to write a generic code, yes. > I think the most important question is to know what is the best solution > for performance and maintainability. The API/ABI questions will be considered
IMO, a true portable platform-independent library may need rte_128i kind of abstracttion to represent a 128bit SIMD variable. I can send an RFC patch to see the changes required across the DPDK. > after. > > Thanks for your involvement guys.
