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 1AC6DA09E4; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:05:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9012F4067A; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:05:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5DC40395 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:05:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6D7EB2; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:05:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:05:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= BtYonEI/z/2mxQ69lXmMYf7IEGlPmFudvK0nlbWVlP0=; b=Z/0buOQ2oPQK+qWK QDg9yl9OZZh9lzUS3HBhnerdMJqzT2bYcPrRTBXeC/BAiAMSoUbHfXbgZ00jNuba 9IHfAJJ2D6XY6xycbTECA06aEcdG0DPMX5ta98oibhlorUG5CDyeX+K8p3mPuAnP RWXAB/S2QSG3cZIUm8fkfPIdAQZE+eCBXALDvQkRqr+dAmu5nQCDg3ZIHvNuPtMa Di3Pc7k2nE2dDd5s2GuPqTzzbVZuLJLEaxUfmZ1JV6/SIDwZK+Jpv3edi+4ebrE8 JhLzs9mUu5GEN+dirZZ/DpT2lF8o071Yy9lohlXfGCXJ8ZEsvIirY3iUGfu9gKm5 tjSWDw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=BtYonEI/z/2mxQ69lXmMYf7IEGlPmFudvK0nlbWVl P0=; b=S/m+zfjLJFJUV3TT19PZEZIP0iuSvFz2D5UgDwFiMed0UmM5eoMHIGm6D iWq71Qs5P4MKdraVQ2XsvrX+GqTmTtpZR9Qi2UFpLyVxpIICBotGppFpC7Tgpb1N vpT1sMGdlCBN8bsnYY/7i8UTWcxgV6ns3t6AoFt6coZuT3tt3VBZ34ea0qhLn5ES p4kObOG7D5DXHPiAP8d2RLKUAg9GopKm3wfm7nygybpaOGAfK63MLi/hZWYT1cpf rMzYpb82ASui05wPJbefmYD56eEHXjP6mdpB8YFVyaSEXnubhEtdp1jHm9WH53WW QvJ5qwZxTQkphEJ5gbgmGUYobhhfQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedtgdehkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 969B624005C; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:05:51 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@redhat.com Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:05:49 +0100 Message-ID: <2692036.YMeHUfa5Hd@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20210128113832.GE899@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20210114110606.21142-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <5391890.O0HVAa98rt@thomas> <20210128113832.GE899@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 7/8] devtools: remove check-includes script 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" 28/01/2021 12:38, Bruce Richardson: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:10:41PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 27/01/2021 18:33, Bruce Richardson: > > > +* The ``check-includes.sh`` script for checking DPDK header files has > > > been + removed, being replaced by the ``check_includes`` build option > > > described above. > > > > How do they compare? Is the new test checking C++ compliance? pedantic? > > > The new support does not do either of those things - though pedantic checks > should be fairly easy to do - so I'm ok to drop this patch and not remove > the script. > > Unfortunately, in my limited testing of it, the script has some usability > issues now that on build all the lib includes are no longer copies to a > single include folder. There is no automatic detection of include paths > for other dependent headers, which means that to run the tool on e.g. > ethdev lib, you need to set up the CFLAGS to include the paths to the net, > eal, kvargs, meter, etc. libraries. Then again, it may work well on an > installed DPDK instance for testing, but the fact that nobody has > complained about it being hard to use before indicates that it is not being > used, and if it's not being used I felt it as well to just drop it. I am OK to drop it. My question is more about improving the new tool to reach the initial goals of the old script.