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 EA99943382; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:41:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D806141109; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:41:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C6F4028C for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:41:41 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1700671301; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zPiCZi5LOiYTYmQ0FRQVPg5+wUilIz0ItFvVirpssLE=; b=bkVXuAhCrdclC5q8dhLs3sqQM1pZMN/dxX49u6bGgvfR+NEona+MiaHd9TEdDX7OkKTbDT SMtJm5KbGAauK2piEXLvUAMoSQH98pDMnCK2kg9WuD36a2qCKKRqBeH7nDKlbUG1zFmbmS 8grNIBC+lHyihcs2sX8UFsvVHC3yPDc= Received: from mail-lj1-f197.google.com (mail-lj1-f197.google.com [209.85.208.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-173-Qu8trsGQMD61vGwPs8CwYA-1; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:41:39 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Qu8trsGQMD61vGwPs8CwYA-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f197.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c876e02f45so41960551fa.3 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 08:41:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700671298; x=1701276098; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zPiCZi5LOiYTYmQ0FRQVPg5+wUilIz0ItFvVirpssLE=; b=qKyGNf0bgYPS8cl8cv35udD1fUfWN5eC54n+8dreuDU5wmWaqBgUTl1TWIO0pPGiQh NB9IBI2x67OENHjIcd52aMwOXl4u/JUUUSMlpBV9fk0HZdZl0ChM/uypcbANI7v3Nz19 kEfNLQSzCO/iPwRyN7QWf8grEyBP+sfrNV+XAWHUejGYTB74BLBdrOn2cgU2zciAj2VW bQ+Zee3ObZGcbqHL6YKs18eyuDok3fNjDA9U4PjqidojThivGq2MaGrZ5hphL+x6AWlQ fid/cwMSd9LUWfUfsnumKMQSJlZSaW0b1kzz2oYosumDs8pXpMUfIwmAly7j4j9ah1vY C4SQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yypsjjn+v4SF1V7xcAiRHCbjXuQkjpAgfsAj2flwPisLXAEGKmr UlpqgLKjq9I3PwP9oSGE/LLMAELHigSUbxiQsgW/RHz7gN2ksmxCKo1DafjxkQTkzUC6+q3tHZX eowOQwzFI/LydtinIXLM= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a498:0:b0:2c5:5926:de52 with SMTP id h24-20020a2ea498000000b002c55926de52mr1985872lji.53.1700671298311; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 08:41:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFDVHK9ekrm3ftSb+Vjs7d1qo1xnciaffxwvz+mrHnqHZEQ/PU0wcc+Ni/1QeSVi+NiX691IxHZs2ZNZTOCg8o= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a498:0:b0:2c5:5926:de52 with SMTP id h24-20020a2ea498000000b002c55926de52mr1985859lji.53.1700671298009; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 08:41:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20231121164903.3982163-1-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:41:26 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: riscv is not a valid -march value To: Stanislaw Kardach Cc: christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com, dev , Thomas Monjalon , Luca Boccassi , Bruce Richardson X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:17=E2=80=AFPM Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 05:02:56PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 5:49=E2=80=AFPM wrote: > > > > > > From: Christian Ehrhardt > > > > > > If building riscv natively with -Dplatform=3Dgeneric config/meson.bui= ld > > > will select cpu_instruction_set=3Driscv. > > > > > > That was fine because config/riscv/meson.build did override it to val= id > > > values later, but since b7676fcccab4 ("config: verify machine arch > > > flag") it will break the build as it tries to test -march=3Driscv whi= ch > > > is not a value value. > > > > > > The generic setting used in most cases is rv64gc, set this here > > > as well. > > > > > > Fixes: b7676fcccab4 ("config: verify machine arch flag") > > > Fixes: f22e705ebf12 ("eal/riscv: support RISC-V architecture") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt > > > --- > > > config/meson.build | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build > > > index d732154731..a9ccd56deb 100644 > > > --- a/config/meson.build > > > +++ b/config/meson.build > > > @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ if cpu_instruction_set =3D=3D 'generic' > > > elif host_machine.cpu_family().startswith('ppc') > > > cpu_instruction_set =3D 'power8' > > > elif host_machine.cpu_family().startswith('riscv') > > > - cpu_instruction_set =3D 'riscv' > > > + cpu_instruction_set =3D 'rv64gc' > > > > Copying more people. > > > > This fix is probably the best, so close to the release. > > > > Agreed I took this patch as is, for now. > > > > > However, I think a more complete fix would be to set this here to gener= ic. > > And do the march validation in config/riscv/meson.build in a similar > > fashion to ARM. > > > > Or maybe the validation added in b7676fcccab4 ("config: verify machine > > arch flag") should be moved after subdir(arch_subdir). > > Bruce, opinion? > > > > Probably the first of these two is best, to do the march validation in th= e > riscv-specific file. However, I've no strong opinions either way. Stanislaw, could you look at doing some enhancement on this topic? And, in any case, what we lack is a CI for RISC V. --=20 David Marchand