14/01/2022 10:05, Ruifeng Wang:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > 17/12/2021 09:54, Ruifeng Wang:
> > > As per design document, RTE_ARCH is the name of the architecture.
> > > However, the definition was missing on Arm with meson build.
> > > It impacts applications that refers to this string.
> > >
> > > Added for Arm builds.
> > >
> > > Fixes: b1d48c41189a ("build: support ARM with meson")
> > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > > ['RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32', true],
> > > + ['RTE_ARCH', 'arm64_aarch32'],
> >
> > Why not armv8_aarch32?
>
> Thanks for the comments.
> Agreed. armv8_aarch32 is consistent with the RTE_ARCH_xx macro above.
>
> >
> > [...]
> > > dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH_ARMv7', true)
> > > + dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH', 'armv7')
> > [...]
> > > # armv8 build
> > > + dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH', 'arm64')
> >
> > Why not armv8?
> >
> > What I prefer the most in silicon industry is the naming craziness :)
>
> While armv8 usually refers to one generation of the Arm architecture, arm64
> is more generic for 64-bit architectures.
> And what defined for armv8 build is RTE_ARCH_ARM64. So for consistency, arm64
> is better?
I don't really care as long as we can have fun of this naming :)
