On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:20 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:05:53PM +0200, Gaėtan Rivet wrote: > > On 07/08/20 19:31 +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 7:04 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/7/2020 2:23 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 06:49:47PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:15 PM Bruce Richardson > > > > >> <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 01:29:52PM +0100, Ciara Power wrote: > > > > >>>> It was decided [1] to no longer support Make in DPDK, this patch > > > > >>>> removes all Makefiles that do not make use of pkg-config, along > > > > >>>> with > > > > >>>> the mk directory previously used by make. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-April/162839.html > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.po...@intel.com> > > > > >>>> --- > > > > >>>> GNUmakefile | 17 - > > > > >>>> Makefile | 4 - > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Open question from me: > > > > >>> Do we want to leave a dummy top-level makefile that prints > > > > >>> instructions on > > > > >>> build with meson and ninja - or even runs a build using them if > > > > >>> they are > > > > >>> installed? > > > > >> > > > > >> Maybe we can keep "make tags" as well in top-level Makefile. > > > > > > > > > > Is it better to point people directly to the script? My concern about > > > > > having a makefile is that it may confuse people as to how to build > > > > > DPDK. > > > > > On the other side, there is a convenience aspect to having a > > > > > makefile, so > > > > > I'm open to being convinced either way. > > > > > > I was looking more of a convenience point of view. > > > Can we check how other meson based projects deal with similar problems? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A dummy Makefile to print instructions may be helpful for people missed > > > > the > > > > change, I am for having it. > > > > > > > > But I am dubious on extending it, like for tags, although I found it > > > > useful I > > > > think we should integrate it to meson instead. > > > > > > I think, we can not integrate such stuff with meson. If we can with meson, > > > I agree we should take that path. > > > > +1 to provide basic and short instructions to use meson when someone > > tries to use make. > > > > On the other hand I think tag generation should not be part of the build > > system. The only dependency of build-tags.sh on make is for `make > > showconfigs`, they can probably be listed without using make. > > > > The scripts seems standalone, why keep make to call it? The config > > target could be inferred if that's the issue? > > > We may not actually need to do anything if we don't want to, > other than put some info in the docs. > > https://mesonbuild.com/Release-notes-for-0-53-0.html#source-tags-targets > > After running "meson build", "ninja -C build ctags" creates a tags file in > the root directory of my git tree, which vim picks up and uses without > problems. Admittedly this is from meson 0.53 onwards, but I'm not sure how > much extra effort we need to put in to support older versions for > developers. Anyone hacking the code is probably using up-to-date tools > anyway, one hopes! > > Jerin, can you perhaps check to see if there are any problems with the > meson-generated tags file or if we are missing anything major compared to > the script-generated one? I would hope that it's pretty complete and that > we can also drop our ctags script in future too, and avoid maintaining it.
I just checked rte_pause definition for x86 build, It is picking up x86, arm, ppc definition also. so meson doesn't have that kind of tag level support like the script. But I am OK to drop the script, if that's the path we are planning to take. No strong opinion. > > /Bruce
