On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 07:01:17PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 21/03/2024 18:27, Tyler Retzlaff: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:09:01PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 20/03/2024 22:12, Tyler Retzlaff: > > > > +#ifdef RTE_TOOLCHAIN_MSVC > > > > +#include <intrin.h> > > > > +#else > > > > #include <x86intrin.h> > > > > +#endif > > > > > > It is not the same include in MSVC? > > > > unfortunately intrin.h is vestigial in the monolithic approach. to use > > any intrinsic you're supposed to include only the one and only true > > header instead of vendor/arch feature specific headers. > > > > > Is it something we want to wrap in a DPDK header file? > > > > do you mean create a monolithic rte_intrinsic.h header that is > > essentially > > > > #ifdef MSVC > > #include <intrin.h> > > #else > > #include <x86intrin.h> > > #include <immintrin.h> > > #include <nmmintrin.h> > > ... > > #endif > > > > i assumed that doing something like this might be unpopular due to the > > unnecessary namespace pollution. > > We already have such a file. > It is rte_vect.h. > I suppose we should just make sure it is included consistently > instead of x86intrin.h or immintrin.h > > This command will show where changes are required: > git grep intrin.h
thanks! i saw none of the problems i had before so this worked great. there is only one other include of intrin.h in eal now and it is not for vector intrinsics so it should be cleaner to just include rte_vect.h whenever SIMD / vector intrinsics are required for windows and !windows. > >
