From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB210231E for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:31:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E71208D6; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:31:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=4DgLYds90Qz2qRM HjHDuy4TWYtEgBOBkCPWTQtfCibQ=; b=e/Z8lTmEdTdR7zb2xkEI0F+Fkj4meSc llHSt8g+X6bptmffmYF5hOqY4CFizzlpALHuo+lK4/n4DB+oOlt618uaBYLNbp+6 u+QuiQRZ2KWC7EAHtLE6lrueosEMfvH+uQMrXmZazm83DjZGCsmPlEslBO1rQbQh w/cYQ5QPoqXA= 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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=4DgLYds90Qz2qRMHjHDuy4TWYtEgBOBkCPWTQtfCibQ=; b=X8ZOYnU3 U60VD+eEw9ZtHuzINz14iT5SRWtqFlXAfqIDrfNu0hT2DCP3T4k7J/qWwvdeoQyN fPNlZ3CleV5yPepAiXdgWY2zT28wP0yD9S6HsK9HLLFzRN3zOgtIUDMPRzrDjRZv lhzVSVPDqbTUQaOG00ZGzJhe4IKeBXodAn0dh4C4UsyEcWsrr9rRmXTxjeTbbQMh 3iynFgkLuhsxfR3CoSunKb1BYVHBv7dNUttlUOdi0RPj9lG0Y5qoqtM3JC32s5sH +1TAkB7nrfyeV4HDUB5+6BBbBflJC89HvWwijRQOLz8//pxixNUoPX7GhFbLMHz9 uqNDt1vj036FOQ== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: FmF7yDlAGy03sfqX2+08zUCRZ9sPQtagHbK3qZkPRupR 1500467473 Received: from xps.localnet (unknown [193.47.165.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 073BB7E2E6; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:31:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Herbert Guan Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jianbo.liu@linaro.org, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:31:11 +0300 Message-ID: <7214394.Gg28SKYvWX@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1499856619-21007-1-git-send-email-herbert.guan@arm.com> <11032881.QA85Xq1nMD@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/armv8: fix poly64/128 compile issue in old GCC(<4.9.0) 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:31:14 -0000 19/07/2017 11:21, Herbert Guan: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > 13/07/2017 05:16, Herbert Guan: > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/rte_vect.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/rte_vect.h > > > +#if (GCC_VERSION < 40900) > > > +typedef uint64_t poly64_t; > > > +typedef uint64x2_t poly64x2_t; > > > +typedef uint8_t poly128_t __attribute__((vector_size(16), > > > aligned(16))); > > > +#endif > > > > I think a better fix would be to switch to DPDK types > > like rte_v128u8_t. > > Thanks a lot for your review and comment. > But I have some concern in this approach. "poly128_t" is for > ARM64 platform only and in fact it's more likely that rte_v128u8_t > (generic DPDK data type) could be defined from poly128_t > (ARM data type) which seems more reasonable. How poly128_t is different from rte_v128u8_t? You are defining poly128_t as (vector_size(16),aligned(16)) and rte_v128u8_t is exactly that. Is it interpreted differently with newer compilers? In that case, you could at least fallback on rte_v128u8_t.