Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf structure size in Windows

2020-05-13 Thread Omar Cardona
Tal, See attached compiler bug section for details. -Original Message- From: Omar Cardona Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:04 AM To: Tal Shnaiderman ; Dmitry Kozlyuk ; Thomas Monjalon ; pallavi.ka...@intel.com; navas...@linux.microsoft.com; ranjit.me...@intel.com; Harini Ramakrishnan ;

Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf structure size in Windows

2020-05-13 Thread Omar Cardona
IIRC, it's this issue. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24383 -Original Message- From: Tal Shnaiderman Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:55 AM To: Dmitry Kozlyuk ; Thomas Monjalon ; pallavi.ka...@intel.com; navas...@linux.microsoft.com; ranjit.me...@intel.com; Harini Ramakrishnan

Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf structure size in Windows

2020-05-13 Thread Dmitry Kozlyuk
On Wed, 13 May 2020 08:55:11 + Tal Shnaiderman wrote: > Thank you Dmitry, do we plan to push this WO or stay with 3 cache > lines uniformly on Windows builds until the clang bug is resolved? > (I'm out of the loop regarding this issue). Let's bring this to the today's call. IMO, uniform layo

Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf structure size in Windows

2020-05-13 Thread Tal Shnaiderman
> Subject: Re: rte_mbuf structure size in Windows > > Hi, > > This is the issue we were talking about from the beginning of year. Microsoft > was supposed to track the bug and allocate resources to fix it if possible. On > the last community call, Naty and Omar claimed there is no noticeable > pe

Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf structure size in Windows

2020-05-13 Thread Tal Shnaiderman
Thank you Omar, this is indeed the same issue. > -Original Message- > From: Omar Cardona > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:08 AM > To: Tal Shnaiderman ; Dmitry Kozlyuk > ; Thomas Monjalon ; > pallavi.ka...@intel.com; navas...@linux.microsoft.com; > ranjit.me...@intel.com; Harini Ramakris

Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf structure size in Windows

2020-05-13 Thread Dmitry Kozlyuk
On Wed, 13 May 2020 07:55:07 + Tal Shnaiderman wrote: > I've noticed that there is a difference between the size of rte_mbuf > in a Unix build comparing to Windows. > > The requirements is for rte_mbuf is to be RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE * 2 > bytes however when I'm building it in Windows the s

[dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf structure size in Windows

2020-05-13 Thread Tal Shnaiderman
Hi, I've noticed that there is a difference between the size of rte_mbuf in a Unix build comparing to Windows. The requirements is for rte_mbuf is to be RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE * 2 bytes however when I'm building it in Windows the size is RTE_CACHE_LINE_MIN_SIZE * 3. Looks like the diff result