From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ve0-x232.google.com (mail-ve0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::232]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB8FDE0 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:05:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id oz11so1261858veb.37 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:06:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i2H63WUa4yPREjtsjJZdIbUsNBs4ASdrguevk7GNh+U=; b=F/cM+1eXlDGzgQMfE3byxFzK9fMQzyX/4dU1SEIz5NKakHfk8+cDQT9ySY/U8RUxQc 72TNDDKFq1lvC612JthEIw3VV9+qGq0q8tHz2RwdUXqx7NCuDvAfMuNjJOPNxy4yFOBg Lk8ohyJkXC2nKazREVdiURdgEu7p186zJjkXkFmZqV1PWSGyGgH0Mp9mBaiG7mHMrt8Y 0G9IAG+7pzUv9B2aWIjvRxyPvMxSkfNdQRm/kUq2JVq3W7LlTAqiDSYMr70dNxoCjDe3 G2eYkOMhE/9VFbCX/kb/UVfHHYFo5ky28oUOnCOCbw5B5Xs9M8O/EzlHinFD0sBFRIEh mwdQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.255.195 with SMTP id as3mr644176ved.50.1389712006465; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:06:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.58.77.173 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:06:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201401141455.57994.thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> References: <8A452F53-AD44-4C3C-8AB0-AD3342206D46@nyansa.com> <201401141238.30056.thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <1FD9B82B8BF2CF418D9A1000154491D973FC5A42@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> <201401141455.57994.thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:36:46 +0330 Message-ID: From: Hamid Ramazani To: Thomas Monjalon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Any benefit of using DPDK's makefiles instead of using your own and linking against DPDK library 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: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:05:33 -0000 Hi, Considering the fact that there are many developers using c++, I totally persuade/agree with the addition of c++ functionality, and thanks to Thomas's guidelines it won't create any overhead in usage. All the Best, --Hamid On 1/14/14, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hello Venky, > > 14/01/2014 14:22, Venkatesan, Venky: >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon >> > 14/01/2014 08:02, Daniel Kan: >> > > I already have existing makefiles for my current application. I woul= d >> > > like to integrate dpdk into the application. =92m wondering if ther= e >> > > is >> > > any benefit to use dpdk=92s makefiles instead of using your own >> > > makefile >> > > and linking against the library (e.g. libintel_dpdk.a). Thanks. >> > >> > DPDK makefiles have 2 benefits: >> > - provide a framework >> > - automatically set CFLAGS and LDFLAGS according to your configuration >> > >> > If you don't need a framework, I think it's better to extract >> > compilation >> > flags with something like pkg-config. >> > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/pkg-config >> > A patch for a such feature would be welcome :) >> >> One other thing to think about - as we add more functionality into DPDK >> (e.g. new libraries for other packet functions), we integrate them into >> the DPDK framework. If you extract compilation flags and setup your own >> makefile, you would have to do this re-integration every time you want t= o >> pick up a new release. The same applies to newer files added etc. etc. >> That is the downside. > > I disagree. > If the Makefile of the application, use a DPDK script or pkg-config to re= ad > > the flags from a generated file, the integration is done only once. > This guide explains the logic and how to implement it: > http://people.freedesktop.org/~dbn/pkg-config-guide.html > > -- > Thomas >