From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6C22965 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:00:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id p65so184700165wmp.1 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:00:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=84YlvcLCaot8+3n1SGvQC/Jy7B56ZwY3d+nfaHIz7R8=; b=U50HYXzebi6HIjWd/Vkr/6JM0rUAORswszQqe2uClNajohTzJmLYx3THoDqWzJlQAX F4xOuI1IfijgCcj4x/g4BDN1tFqP23FlYgHdmKwtuOtCENqxFsJoyyqUHk0yY/CtKoe9 4Tdmejkmlz8GKcY6UU/mcBVuTSr88gQQpGhZiutrHmWFLf5iJEidKOUyqB3OTdod11Am k4PhGSQzMN3HYFoOEBO3EujJS5Z8BfVDStG5cgXDj9rvEYs6jqbVMUoSrlQVXV7b9KVj ZYLdmdKW+AJC3L9kDZH5n3eLrjvGVAC2X1yuCXJdP0t5n+skH82zC1XLFfLbBmmuyOOY TK+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=84YlvcLCaot8+3n1SGvQC/Jy7B56ZwY3d+nfaHIz7R8=; b=cLdwL6EUm4TQwzp8/6/jyEKZeCC/eYAQle/NCA28WgOAtoYf9Uk5X5waOT4RKFwy69 mL5N9cpFvbHZmKRost5xin2JHolAfov2x+rtsjN5PbOWGw1v2NRI7oK7ki3rIeWfo4P4 ASWFq0DnwQF/8crkLCUrhDh4CXeqe0ZyaGh+w8l2ytOHXSQSaLgxU2+GP1vZVnik0GiB UjneA0WJr1vtPO3O/KjMp1japiof1SE/R8zJztiP8aUm738WR2lEoPHAN3p9aCigj3qP vaWQ07De7NYLodBdcLLRgMP+RsqNxCDUjpI/O/WztzYBU3OMJVNKCvoD3p8NhFQSXOJ5 2kLw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKSdx/5nIR6W5tDq9cxl3sAKFxMbQJrCawVnOiYCKjvWHOsTkvZIDxIREx4TFyE/HJ6 X-Received: by 10.28.21.14 with SMTP id 14mr10064611wmv.39.1459346407032; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c128sm19898673wma.11.2016.03.30.07.00.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:00:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Singh, Jasvinder" , "Zhang, Roy Fan" , "Hunt, David" Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:58:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1604259.r6MUcN1Lc0@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D89126479744E9@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1455605170-16137-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <1455605170-16137-3-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D89126479744E9@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] examples/ip_pipeline: fix build for x86_64 without SSE4.2 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:00:07 -0000 2016-03-30 13:24, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > The compiler cannot use _mm_crc32_u64: > > > > examples/ip_pipeline/pipeline/hash_func.h:165:9: > > error: implicit declaration of function '_mm_crc32_u64' is invalid in C99 > > > > Fixes: 947024a26df7 ("examples/ip_pipeline: rework passthrough pipeline") > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon [...] > > -#if defined(__x86_64__) > > +#if defined(__x86_64__) && defined(RTE_CPUFLAG_SSE4_2) > > Hi Thomas, > > This is not the correct fix, as RTE_CPUFLAG_SSE4_2 is a flag that can > only be tested at run-time (as result of calling function > rte_cpu_get_flag_enabled()), not at build-time. Yes you're right. It is an error, the word MACHINE is missing. The flag should be RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_SSE4_2. > The reason it appears to fix the build issue you are mentioning is the fact > that this change results in disabling the __x86_64__ code branch. > > We need to revert this patch and look for a better option. > > What is the compiler that generates the build issue you are mentioning? > We could not reproduce it with gcc 5 (gcc 5.3.1). It fails with gcc-5.2.0 and clang-3.6.2 for machine "default".