From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EA37E1B for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 22:18:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [2001:470:8:a08:9833:6894:f2b2:43a] (helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1XZmvj-0003pE-SI; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:25:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 16:24:51 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Matthew Hall Message-ID: <20141002202451.GF4900@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1412265386-26291-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <20141002172634.GE4900@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20141002200420.GB29590@mhcomputing.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141002200420.GB29590@mhcomputing.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y 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: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:18:20 -0000 On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:04:20PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library here? > > Is it just to ease application linking operations? If so, it almost seems to me > > that we should abandon the individual linking method and just use this as the > > default output (and do simmilarly for the static linking build) > > > > Neil > > Not clear if you wrote "single shared library" on purpose instead of "single > static library". But for me the objective of COMBINE_LIBS usage would be > getting a "single static library" for my app, which just works, and eliminates > need of start-group, end-group, weird library ordering issues, etc. I'm not > interested personally in a "shared library" because it'd run slower. > Actually I do need to revise my question, thank you. you're right, doing a single archive for static builds makes the most sense, because you wind up with a static binary anyway, and as such, theres really no need for multiple dpdk archives. We should just create a single dpdk.a file and be done with it. The shared libraries are a different story. While at first it made sense to me to merge them all, it actually doesn't because PMD's might be built independently and shipped separate from the core library. > Personally my preference would be to do both the single libs and multiple libs > in static format by default. Disk space is cheap, let's maximize user freedom > and flexibility. But shared lib, since it performs less well, should be > discouraged by default, although allowed if needed... some people prefer it > because it's easier to patch security vulns if you can replace a buggy library > for all the code on a system. > This seems somewhat irrelevant to the patch. The default configuration is already the way you want it to be, shared library performance is actually very close to static performance, and yes, people can choose how they want to build. Not sure what point your trying to make here. Neil > Matthew. >