>On 03/03/2016 08:37 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> --- a/config/defconfig_x86_64-native-bsdapp-clang >>> +++ b/config/defconfig_x86_64-native-bsdapp-clang >>> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ CONFIG_RTE_MACHINE="native" >>> CONFIG_RTE_ARCH="x86_64" >>> CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_X86_64=y >>> CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_X86=y >>> +CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_64=y >>> >>> CONFIG_RTE_TOOLCHAIN="clang" >>> CONFIG_RTE_TOOLCHAIN_CLANG=y >>> diff --git a/config/defconfig_x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc >>> b/config/defconfig_x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc >>> index 5a6a4e8..4ea4433 100644 >>> --- a/config/defconfig_x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc >>> +++ b/config/defconfig_x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc >>> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ CONFIG_RTE_MACHINE="native" >>> CONFIG_RTE_ARCH="x86_64" >>> CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_X86_64=y >>> CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_X86=y >>> +CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_64=y >> >> It should be a totally separate patch. >> And there are other places where it is missing. > >On a related note, perhaps the arch settings should be split to their >own files, eg common_x86_64, common_i686 and so on that the defconfig >files then include. That should eliminate things like missing >CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_64 fairly effectively, and further reduce the >duplication in the configs. > >I can send a patch to do that once the dust from the common_base move >settles if you like the idea.
+1, Sounds reasonable to me. > > - Panu - > Regards, Keith
