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 7C328A00B8; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:08:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9507E1BEF6; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:08:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com (new1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.221]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180861BEF0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:08:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D77D7380; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 05:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 05:08:02 -0400 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=qSCEyevsq5Pl+24scEvgnCqoLFhu12RFu+3kBDTFh1k=; b=CR6V1q6HxXFC rXXMOB9YOjXQJnlwjx4hQYvALUV5ifGGRupbCh/ikvrqCu6muDiUGFjCJQ6yi1CI YKtNMiyuITveR8DrwcyhFv78pGg5KdKboEg0GGcP2U6MFMs5DR8A/mzAJltyjSG2 4QWwIB0AAQ3BCDgt8S/wGB76CZiAJEw= 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=qSCEyevsq5Pl+24scEvgnCqoLFhu12RFu+3kBDTFh 1k=; b=f7M4rrkKDCI1mQiYEV6yazCG6Tgy4EV3sU52xLITHGz9O69tCTK0p9Q3p DqrxZVQ83oqEN5qhfzKp1vTWCaybyEcBtaLiBugJ1XO6322xyq1zWcAbVTzaKFtq 5UOWNgklpHOo2qzTW/rtxz2qnFiUNqbeT3lWAezGKwSbjalRhsd/Ip4pYo0n/USs mXP0UG4cylHajXEgN8d+5t1UoB+wTAlUCZfeOBkD/+wjsDUKS7lk7h1KemfFQFkX lBNu1vguptd0dgZ7Iyerc/gW/me439o7RUHydH+6rDGmL4//rb2MWwrzaTBNB2Sh pg4ncm8vFHRQogeTqUhZ/Bdhfmkbg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrleelucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrh hofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghi lhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurh ephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofho nhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukfhppeejje drudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghs sehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt 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 4A14BD60062; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 05:07:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Andrzej Ostruszka Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ray Kinsella , Aaron Conole , Michael Santana , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , David Hunt , Bruce Richardson , Vladimir Medvedkin , Robert Sanford , Erik Gabriel Carrillo , mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com, stephen@networkplumber.org Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:07:58 +0100 Message-ID: <1695055.ielmodPQVg@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20190917075754.8310-1-amo@semihalf.com> <1775281.ulgepI6dQ0@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 01/10] build: add an option to enable LTO build 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" 28/10/2019 09:36, Andrzej Ostruszka: > On 10/27/19 12:31 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 18/09/2019 15:32, Ray Kinsella: > >> this is cool, good work. > >> comments below. > >> > >> On 17/09/2019 08:57, Andrzej Ostruszka wrote: > >>> --- a/lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c > >>> +++ b/lib/librte_distributor/rte_distributor.c > >>> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ EAL_REGISTER_TAILQ(rte_dist_burst_tailq) > >>> > >>> /**** Burst Packet APIs called by workers ****/ > >>> > >>> -void > >>> +void __vsym > >> > >> all these additional __vsym annotations looks like they belong in a > >> seperate patch, as they are fixing a bug and are not directly related to > >> adding LTO the build system. > > > > Andrzej, you did not reply to this question. > > This is a real blocker for merging this series. > > Thomas, thank you for the reminder. Somehow that comment has escaped me > - although I've read it then. > > > Should __vsym addition be in a separate patch? > > I'm fine both ways. You could argue that: > - it is a bug since '__vsym' clearly annotates the function as being > used as a particular version of a symbol and as such it was missing > - or as a part of enablement for LTO since without it compiler/linker > should not be removing given function and '__vsym' really is just a > "attribute(used)" to tell optimizing compiler/linker that this > function should not be removed. > > Since you raised that question I'm guessing that you prefer it to be in > a separate patch - so, unless you object now, I'm going to split it in > the next version and have it as a first patch. > > > Should we document its use in rte_function_versioning.h > > and versioning.rst? > > Yes, I think so. I'll add that. > > Again, thank you for the reminder and comments. Thank you, a separate patch with doc update is very welcome.