On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 6:29 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > What I'd actually like more, but never have had time to actually try out > > > is > > > to generalise the instruction-set-specific build stuff into the higher > > > level > > > drivers/meson.build code. After all, much of the code for doing so is just > > > duplicated - check for AVX512 or AVX2 and if present build these files > > > with > > > the extra flags for that instruction set. > > > > > > Something similar with the base code. Most base code builds follow pretty > > > much the exact same routine. > > > > Having those separate libraries require special cases every time, so > > yes, it would be great if those could be factored in some shared > > mechanism in drivers/meson.build. > > > > Putting the AVX stuff aside, and back to why we need those separate > > libraries for base drivers... I think the main use is to waive some > > build warnings, is there something else? > > If so.. I think some drivers could already be cleaned (like net/e1000, > > net/ngbe, net/octeontx, net/thunderx, net/txgbe, raw/ifpga at a first > > glance). > > > > The AVX stuff seems a bit more complex, as there are multiple > > combinations... > > > > First attempt seems to go surprisingly smoothly[1]. It still builds, which is > a start, though obviously some testing will be needed to check nothing else > is broken.
If it builds.. what more to ask for? :-) > It really helped that most code just seemed to have been copy-pasted around > the place. I had a quick look, it lgtm on the principle. Could this be applied to lib/ ? (I see some complications with AVX512 special instructions in lib/net..). -- David Marchand
