From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFFAA0547; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:51:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1FE40E28; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:51:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D33C4068B for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:51:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1086) id B16A120B7178; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:51:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com B16A120B7178 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1626713461; bh=wuTcN+bluTt+dQXwXFQnBvZwsS854OwePYTyPYyBIIo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=olmyVNYvnDGOQcfvX/nLMqHgKCROuiI1cbMjAyc2I1DOArK++xLuLw/mW5/pUaA1y ktLXWSeHOKizCQ0w2/KIgM3Io1hYeUM4CKmJdYdVVCggKFQ2cJbsMpKWqpNgu9K3gC RBxiFeNRuDZwCarQzNhQIGOOp3iNM9/cDoyfMu3Y= Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:51:01 -0700 From: Tyler Retzlaff To: Dmitry Kozlyuk Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net Message-ID: <20210719165101.GA7679@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> References: <20210708192109.GA13966@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <20210708234953.67906871@sovereign> <20210709010319.GB23346@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <20210716124035.51741861@sovereign> <20210719034541.GA1949@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> <20210719121212.6d78b06c@sovereign> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210719121212.6d78b06c@sovereign> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] RFC enabling dll/dso for dpdk on windows X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 12:12:12PM +0300, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote: > > > > mingw emutls just makes it compile allowing the variables to be exported, > > the binaries still won't work without loader support. or are you saying > > they do? > > > > > > > > No, it is not acceptable to add a generic feature supported by only one > > > compiler. (FWIW, I'm displeased even by mlx5 being tied to clang.) > > > Particularly, I don't understand how could MinGW and clang coexist > > > if they export different sets of symbols. Apps will need to know > > > if it's MingW- or clang-compiled DPDK? Sounds messy. > > > > it doesn't seem reasonable to reject the feature because mingw may or > > may not work. mingw binaries are not worse off if the feature can be > > enabled with clang. either way it is untested i am uncertain if it will > > work with mingw and have no time budget to test it. if it made mingw > > built binaries "worse" i would agree with you but the worst case > > scenario is that it works exactly as well as it does now. > > My mistake, I thought we exported __emutls.VARNAME symbols (in which case > MinGW DLLs would work without loader change). Since we don't, then you're > right, we have the same set of exported symbols and can enable this feature. > I'm willing to share the effort and help with MinGW. sounds good to me, i'll work on a draft patch with you and when we have something acceptable we'll formally post it. thanks for helping out.