From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602AEA0032; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:50:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91B641148; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:50:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD6F40C35; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:50:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B948E5C016C; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 07:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 14 Jan 2022 07:50:04 -0500 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=fm3; bh= vchjDIXhI0AfL0kWFIetqm4jdFmga+FhwyxgGEC8xjs=; b=a2Axm0rDpZ2n8/76 IzzkvRJR9CstRsmcqocm9dwmzu0kSnp+OPogy5oE8arFw4zJ/5iRGRxiyJTsL+WI wsWodhhjTDXjPBH7VyzuXXKKAJgB3x6r/L777Je2OBG/babP2i2G84/pcIsqbBtb Y69QH+M4imVtWOSVyWD9wAGP5wR5ZQHXB1oBms2Qpmbd6NnJlDosdPFN8EVbw68L yAnnjReHa1BYyFzMGGFW5jkO46+Ngr3A64YyxacMYVeqwXyIpuRIAT0X6jWvYG5d dHkBn7k52yYbOhd3K/gpbwfCkNfzHyRX2OW3t5nGhSs7cVQ/N/4M8PHKPMDaC/MG pe0Icw== 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=vchjDIXhI0AfL0kWFIetqm4jdFmga+FhwyxgGEC8x js=; b=d71LjYdTg8YsYdMa2jy2s7ATfQO6CjyJLSf7jwIOQf2BQvPwhm8G46hEi 1xXb6ewLOSPXFY5S/Sfx4fL1IDlLSSweaz5YfYVuUzEEp7xS7mfn4y3fS5Nyodob Z9BKT8N4A+psdoDcla6Pu0o/wy/GRwb+KERf7pS1iPtL7dQnSq0Hke4bAYvsCtkG zib1/jiM52dqn8ZNxPxramlzQGIVWcP/HThfvVBGjO8GeW2rCfLj3XgNnUVuU3Eq C7h9OWEAvIhk1/2p+gpCQJ0XqGsmr29yIvmVQNS2hDd9vbcMgrg0UiGURq7gWX0b kktHJIvVCpZKfyz/zzCPWk7pOuhMQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrtdehgdegiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 07:50:02 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ruifeng Wang Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "stable@dpdk.org" , "viktorin@rehivetech.com" , "bruce.richardson@intel.com" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech" , Honnappa Nagarahalli , nd Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: add missing arch define for Arm Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:50:01 +0100 Message-ID: <2134695.ZfL8zNpBrT@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20211217085430.820773-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> <10596176.5MRjnR8RnV@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 14/01/2022 10:05, Ruifeng Wang: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 17/12/2021 09:54, Ruifeng Wang: > > > As per design document, RTE_ARCH is the name of the architecture. > > > However, the definition was missing on Arm with meson build. > > > It impacts applications that refers to this string. > > > > > > Added for Arm builds. > > > > > > Fixes: b1d48c41189a ("build: support ARM with meson") > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang > > > --- > > > ['RTE_ARCH_ARMv8_AARCH32', true], > > > + ['RTE_ARCH', 'arm64_aarch32'], > > > > Why not armv8_aarch32? > > Thanks for the comments. > Agreed. armv8_aarch32 is consistent with the RTE_ARCH_xx macro above. > > > > > [...] > > > dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH_ARMv7', true) > > > + dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH', 'armv7') > > [...] > > > # armv8 build > > > + dpdk_conf.set('RTE_ARCH', 'arm64') > > > > Why not armv8? > > > > What I prefer the most in silicon industry is the naming craziness :) > > While armv8 usually refers to one generation of the Arm architecture, arm64 is more generic for 64-bit architectures. > And what defined for armv8 build is RTE_ARCH_ARM64. So for consistency, arm64 is better? I don't really care as long as we can have fun of this naming :)