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 54967A0352; Tue, 5 May 2020 22:37:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1D21D6CE; Tue, 5 May 2020 22:37:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2261D6C4 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 22:37:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 045KWfq1148004; Tue, 5 May 2020 16:37:05 -0400 Received: from ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (7a.29.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.53.41.122]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30s50h0p6q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 May 2020 16:37:05 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 045KZCbl020096; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:37:04 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 30s0g6tkv7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 May 2020 20:37:04 +0000 Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.235]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 045Kb32M24773030 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 5 May 2020 20:37:03 GMT Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2474E7805F; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:37:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9E67805C; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:37:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from Davids-MBP.randomparity.org (unknown [9.163.73.199]) by b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:37:01 +0000 (GMT) To: Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=c5=82_Krawczyk?= , mw@semihalf.com, "Tzalik, Guy" , Evgeny Schemeilin , igorch@amazon.com, Andrew Rybchenko References: <20200504174552.6700-1-drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200504210347.24094-1-drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18ecc473-3d80-a232-963f-19e34c021e72@intel.com> <8f6efd02-741d-b606-3749-cae90da3be44@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: David Christensen Message-ID: <4918df59-a7f6-3ef1-3bb7-e1ec91b390cc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 13:37:01 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-05_10:2020-05-04, 2020-05-05 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=957 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2005050158 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal: fix rte_memcpy build on ppc with gcc 9.3 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" >>> I can't find "rte_altivec.h", am I missing something. >>> >>> With just ignoring "-Warray-bounds" changes, I confirm ena build issue is fixed >>> with gcc 9.1 >> >> The rte_altivec.h is related to another open patch required to build on >> POWER systems (http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/69605/) that's waiting to >> be accepted. You may not have encountered it if you're not building the >> MLX5 PMD which has additional library requirements. >> > > I see, I missed it. Looks good on top of that patch, although it still doesn't > apply cleanly. > > It helps to put a comment to the patch about the dependent patch if it is not > merged yet. It was an oversight on my part, forgetting that I had another patch installed. I can submit a corrected version if you think it's necessary but then that that patch will have to be adjusted when it's eventually merged. Sorry for the confusion. Dave