DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:10:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141003081019.GA28988@sivswdev02.ir.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2041475.WSUx3LgNfR@xps13>

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:15:20AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2014-10-02 13:04, Matthew Hall:
> > 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)
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> We need to simplify build options. So I'm fine to remove COMBINE_LIBS option
> to always enable it.
> About making only one single static library, I think it's a good idea if
> it brings a real code simplification.
> 
> So the conclusion is to nack this patchset in favor of above changes.
> Sergio, comments?
> 

Frankly I did not think of users linking against single and combine lib for 
different apps.
I think If the goal is to simplify code then we should just provide one build
option, either single or combine. Personally, I do not have a preference.

So just to be clear, we would remove COMBINE_LIBS to always make a single combine
lib or to create both single and combine?
For the later option, would we be linking apps against single or combine libraries?

Sergio 

> -- 
> Thomas

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-03  8:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-02 15:56 Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-02 15:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] Link combined shared library using CC Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-02 15:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] Do not generate individual libs when configured with RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-02 20:00   ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-02 15:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] Link apps only against combined lib or individual libs, not both Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-02 15:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] Cleanup Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-02 17:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y Neil Horman
2014-10-02 20:04   ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-02 20:24     ` Neil Horman
2014-10-02 21:10       ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-03  0:52         ` Neil Horman
2014-10-03 10:31       ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-03 11:28         ` Neil Horman
2014-10-03 23:52           ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-10-04  2:30             ` Neil Horman
2014-10-03  7:15     ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-03  8:10       ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy [this message]
2014-10-03  8:27         ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-03 11:32           ` Neil Horman
2014-10-03 18:17             ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-03 19:15               ` Neil Horman
2014-10-03 21:21                 ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-06 14:45                   ` Neil Horman
2014-10-03 18:13           ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-03 18:00       ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-06 10:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] Update build process Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-06 10:52   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] Link combined shared library using CC Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-06 10:52   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] Link apps only against single/combined library Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-06 10:52   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] Update library build process Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-06 20:46     ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-07  9:55       ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-08 22:36         ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-09  9:44           ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-08 15:38     ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-06 10:52   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] Link apps/DSOs against EXECENV_LDLIBS with --as-needed Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-08 15:38     ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-09  9:23       ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-06 14:49   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] Update build process Neil Horman
2014-10-06 15:01     ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-06 16:05       ` Neil Horman
2014-10-09 13:04   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] Update libs " Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-09 13:04     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/6] Link combined shared library using CC Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-09 13:04     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/6] Link apps only against single/combined library Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-09 13:04     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/6] Remove CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS and related Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-09 13:04     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] Update library build process Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-09 13:04     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/6] Avoid duplicated code Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-09 13:04     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] Link apps/DSOs against EXECENV_LDLIBS with --as-needed Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2014-10-13 16:01     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/6] Update libs build process Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
2014-10-21  9:43       ` Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
2014-10-22 16:14         ` Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141003081019.GA28988@sivswdev02.ir.intel.com \
    --to=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).