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 B3832A0A04; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:03:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B26B1411D6; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:03:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CCE1411D4 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:03:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381F45C0134; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 11:03:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 11:03:02 -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= 5sRMEI79FU+Jl4/Sl/DxvWkHNDKLeT8Tpe2O6Ua+f7I=; b=PKxla8y90eDk6+SF MmDcPQi3zJ13dMiL4non5e6ZCFM9RBf9PHBZLWldnQtKmfNSdiVfzE23815sc0HT Z35iME2KcdzVH61oM2T+ucY7Qae9lli1+Q0p8/CoyjuT52RYAClKzXlPJ0iGR2A+ NVxbcsrBAji5YqZRC51/AwFQ5MjDrzKrx9gbW0QQEej4bHRlewAnYBAb3kmFeHBY fmROgd/UFYAMkl0h7cGJaYShQJC6KqA7R54tvC1xP85PahHQSEChVRtSeN0kXDSU HfgZvne9EHbtJH7uIthnLiDnKJfNu7jNgY7009GYvsMRoWYW9QhtckDh1JbqSXPT Gr9S+Q== 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=5sRMEI79FU+Jl4/Sl/DxvWkHNDKLeT8Tpe2O6Ua+f 7I=; b=SB1Jno4hKnJQHo7RY0H4MZtdAtcM18mRBe6oqNZSClGwwvFKWemdCzQbK tFnJ0w2GVL7mQ7S2csj+iCH5BjJqwj5xDYWkD5TMQ4xSR/As/l48eApfOm0tq9nO InL7M7cCUHuC2eHAA8asEMdFErTY/9dEqptej6xUsfiocqJdPupV7WU47yMKP6Pu FNXZMv9jSyu/4O0VufU/9AHVjllHWyKwgJYhBdduYJV/YCsX4avVPro3I30uMW2d IgdqcNb541Ht+pqhTrgZlme5/ZJhg440KTTzCAaIgPC6KA54sXGFJRcYFrxwohdM HR5NNcgxTMtK5/8CkZ84iSBxe5eIw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrtddvgdehlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf 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 27635108005F; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 11:03:01 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand Cc: dev , Bruce Richardson Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:02:59 +0100 Message-ID: <7896731.039jBx0qpB@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20201207173319.1397740-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <1624576.mXulGEC3Iq@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] devtools: avoid installing static binaries 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" 15/01/2021 16:24, David Marchand: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:01 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 13/01/2021 20:05, Thomas Monjalon: > > > When testing compilation and checking ABI compatibility, > > > there is no real need of static binaries eating disks. > > > > > > The static linkage of applications was already well tested, > > > though the static examples tested with meson were limited to "l3fwd" only. > > > The static build test with make is limited to "helloworld" example. > > > > > > The ABI compatibility is checked on shared libraries, > > > and there is no need to test again on similar builds. > > > A new parameter is added to the function "build", > > > so the ABI check is enabled only for native gcc and clang shared builds, > > > 32-bit, generic armv8 and ppc cross compilations. > > > In other words, it is disabled for some static builds and some Arm ones. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > > > --- > > > v2: > > > - separate ABI check enablement from default library > > > - disable ABI check in specific Arm builds > > > --- > > [...] > > > -build build-x86-default cc -Dlibdir=lib -Dmachine=$default_machine $use_shared > > > +build build-x86-default cc ABI \ > > > + -Dlibdir=lib -Dmachine=$default_machine $use_shared > > > > After a second thought, I think this one should be "skipABI". > > No opinion on this one. > > The title might need some tweak, since you also disabled the ABI check > on some ARM targets. Yes, you're right. Disabling some ABI checks is a way to reduce the number of static binaries, but it should be visible in the title. > The rest lgtm. > > Acked-by: David Marchand Applied with title "devtools: reduce ABI checks and static binaries"