From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA34C130 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:10:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id g62so121479572wme.1 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:10:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=yTnUSSmhQl0xcqRhB2R3J8Kesyw40z4Vs+3joExWt2c=; b=oB/n5MzUQfwN0cm2NVlOEY2Eq2cTc90XXnwRCzu46DdDHoB3RDeT05HEXlfGzpvE5b nI7f9IkXi+IzDAsVDY7P29GV/KqE4BLmcLM3QFQHu0ATYwxQbSKUdNeoyVPhxMJ2092m AoPdCoan0VsMuPJfY19Dbo4Ad9APZXuzwHHLnjO8umafwJ3FO/YBEOFyRes4Cu9z8azS qr0uxIYCRTEOEThKXq/chXbNKhB6G946W9n/SCce+BccJbQVPs01OpLt9l6ykCDWqOw8 MnlsfEwPJJC/s1kSS0tu4mmPcj7LJF/2ecz2cTGGoaOXLvYe/RjqEHNB5MVBjl88Lo2o KyMQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=yTnUSSmhQl0xcqRhB2R3J8Kesyw40z4Vs+3joExWt2c=; b=H7wk7uiPPhHQEBfZuPKetpLb6iFPcdeL4mQqO09qvRT/ovp20Ba46vyIfHnwi6BWo8 L3vSvMV9PUkcyvj9KQE+YzueAlyDEFyex5m++SwaztdES0iRblkG0y5zssfIbO7fbofQ yWFGO7nE1bMSHq0/tMOCckfF69Kh2c1nxlEKdO8t0rTNDDjC9FX2Qn1Z6KNdgho5zgyU ZhhVANPOZ16o5IPZqdcHW+FfCncx0QKMxC/chTeBIZiy+dZveTqpbKwYBQedkSK5f3+e uaNsBgHsv5GxME2vHngfWj5vylwRJQjgkYMZf9I5n8JmVjK8PFKpodGBzV3SdXBLtA9x Z6AA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTK29UTZWrt0R8Zx7rGFdo7EzTptVyjOiwEyZ6gcjHRZN2vWX5OMbqFP7qnsxEHNx+j X-Received: by 10.28.153.14 with SMTP id b14mr22488282wme.93.1455646254705; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:10:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y3sm12016977wmy.17.2016.02.16.10.10.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:10:54 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Fernando Seiti Furusato Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:09:22 +0100 Message-ID: <2641339.7y4mNALekD@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <56C364A4.3010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1455296713-7417-1-git-send-email-ferseiti@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56BE3015.7090804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56C364A4.3010000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: set CFLAGS for ppc64el build X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:10:55 -0000 2016-02-16 16:04, Fernando Seiti Furusato: > Hi Thomas. > > On 02/12/2016 05:18 PM, Fernando Seiti Furusato wrote: > > Hello Thomas. > > Thanks for your quick response. > > > > On 02/12/2016 03:37 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 2016-02-12 12:05, Fernando Seiti Furusato: > >>> Add a proper ifeq statement to set the mcpu as needed for ppc64el, as > >>> the only one originally set is not valid for ppc architectures. > >> > >> What is the benefit of using the default machine config, compared to > >> the power8 one? > >> > >> Don't you think the default machine should be renamed core2? > > > > I think it would be better indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. > > > >> > >> [...] > >>> +ifeq (ppc64le,$(shell uname -m)) > >>> + MACHINE_CFLAGS += -mcpu=power8 > >> > >> Why this flag is not set in mk/machine/power8/rte.vars.mk ? > >> > > > > This and what observed above would make a better patch. > > Let me try those. > > I will be just changing the flag within mk/machine/power8/rte.vars.mk so > it will be used on ppc64le. Does it mean that only little endian is supported on POWER8? > I thought since I am not sure how it will affect others, I will not mess > with the default file. Yes let's keep it for another patch if someone is concerned. > I had to copy config/defconfig_ppc_64-power8-linuxapp-gcc to > config/defconfig_ppc64le-native-linuxapp-gcc, because the build searches > for it on ppc64le. Should I include that in the patch? > Do you think there is a better approach? Not sure to understand. I think there is something wrong in the commands you use to compile. Are you using "make config T=ppc_64-power8-linuxapp-gcc" ?