From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <smonroy@ecsmtp.ir.intel.com> Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0151BE82 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:03:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2014 01:10:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,645,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="609141630" Received: from irvmail001.ir.intel.com ([163.33.26.43]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2014 01:10:21 -0700 Received: from sivswdev02.ir.intel.com (sivswdev02.ir.intel.com [10.237.217.46]) by irvmail001.ir.intel.com (8.14.3/8.13.6/MailSET/Hub) with ESMTP id s938AKMM016620; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:10:21 +0100 Received: from sivswdev02.ir.intel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sivswdev02.ir.intel.com with ESMTP id s938AKdc029032; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:10:20 +0100 Received: (from smonroy@localhost) by sivswdev02.ir.intel.com with id s938AJ4k029028; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:10:19 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:10:19 +0100 From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> Message-ID: <20141003081019.GA28988@sivswdev02.ir.intel.com> References: <1412265386-26291-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <20141002172634.GE4900@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20141002200420.GB29590@mhcomputing.net> <2041475.WSUx3LgNfR@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2041475.WSUx3LgNfR@xps13> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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 <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:03:31 -0000 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