From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D78A04B4; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 15:31:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA38D1C1E5; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 15:31:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829C91C1D3 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 15:31:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D24423; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:31:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 09:31:46 -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=mesmtp; bh=dZvvLgxAU05zuon0PiKU9Lqxzm1GuVbdnEOxg9D7sns=; b=F/yuAaeQzYOb 4KBnoGzxQhk0ESQ/AOBjWq/qC/RlZdGCtKjuUoyGlcDG/755ZQjXkadMXgclDNeH rS86+E13SWK0fxJRudVFKrqGWCej1KbaQW4wrR4CUVV52tPzt/dcZ9qbFylepypP 49k4F6/ms8Roi7mYrr2nK9aOt9MmRRY= 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=dZvvLgxAU05zuon0PiKU9Lqxzm1GuVbdnEOxg9D7s ns=; b=NgRH3RZzgJ61bBPjAdPZ1AsARRB3MyumnMutKHxBgSg7y7NN0cWuwydBB SCtcElCBKYcl6n4Ag6wR1Xg0GVhjonjCKoJMmSHBM35kQ5IoG29YYhl3XkBYiG1J Ye/h+CH45tajd97XS+uVsSYLzTRoHHJ7r+2Lfhj5FwhPFyck47SbeDb4vLBrPC30 D6WalBiMkx77aVytcreZGxuYHqFlIEeyPfxQF7l/X9r9zIcj0g9U/BeJ0nGKaF0+ MdvY2JUnuipidGYCN5Kx0oBgLIklvRdtX13j+pB2wfUm8YxVjKwTCtLk9kpIjcrq 1czOm+rcJyaSzgc/yO66x8xrjMusQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddvuddgieejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttddunecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt 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 4537480062; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:31:45 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Mattias =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F6nnblom?= Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:31:44 +0100 Message-ID: <2903525.fdzLKIPo8T@xps> In-Reply-To: <3d280f7e-057f-a35c-bd2f-db401e46e110@ericsson.com> References: <3d280f7e-057f-a35c-bd2f-db401e46e110@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK and Link-time Optimizations X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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" 29/04/2019 18:39, Mattias R=F6nnblom: > If LTO builds would work "out of the box", DPDK could gradually migrate=20 > from away from having static inline functions in the header files. >=20 > Those interested squeezing out as much performance as possible would=20 > build with LTO (and static linking), and those applications who cared=20 > more about independent upgrades would use dynamic linking and non-LTO=20 > builds. With the extra cost of using DPDK as a shared library=20 > (-fPIC-compiled code, more expensive TLS accesses etc), I'm guessing=20 > this is the case already today. That's an interesting point of view. =46or info, LTO is merged now. I would like to see some benchmarks about LTO static vs shared vs shared without inlines. Then we could decide what to do with inline functions.