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 5E2D5A09E8; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:37:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF9272D9; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:37:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA4698 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:37:20 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1607441839; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TlDhiOIpRJZPYcaEAdxF9SEy2LnZ/u2Dhh+FvkL7xSY=; b=Mg6FVkz82JWvSyIXA76FbFLYssXUwvoMq4/Oop9hnK1+GmU1xcv81epqj+q0sm8HikD+0O FKBH6ow/Y1OdJu5d6PL/Eb0e2yIL6LAm4nKB9y7sWkrsHNcVoYIwrFhrGFePVE3c+J4rKJ XOKSpqTSWGGGMUSBbUnUF9n0Tn2xKTk= Received: from mail-vk1-f197.google.com (mail-vk1-f197.google.com [209.85.221.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-582-yAaJECu-Oz-HnDEdkhXPug-1; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:37:17 -0500 X-MC-Unique: yAaJECu-Oz-HnDEdkhXPug-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id e10so5231253vke.6 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 07:37:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TlDhiOIpRJZPYcaEAdxF9SEy2LnZ/u2Dhh+FvkL7xSY=; b=Hhrvgf2ZLuTej4cLML+XykERfgK2al1RnbbzS5/3kjsgchQeMzZ+XVcucj0rhoPtMy VkRmWLFr8KAP2crjWo94WzhYWW84mxHw0lTnmxPJHWlsQG9zgRrklHCmnekXPiDiBGyb xnl1OHCbH/fUZivpuMQVvK4f3NNeaaHy4e1uJ/U+4sV0LXmsYiaCxhs/gby8QjctMqpE Ov+lq6E4tJaCmU1vC86vBXGqrCAVZG4lBh69GO6llY7zJvscVQN23AMX46Rmm5mg6REh NinbYP3163rWomTmYj/6CFCaInuowe3u5sutwSsDvj8OKY62i83fEfMKQ4lpCClKOk4Z U8LQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Z9JlPrOuGUFb6h2x/pQMIO1/0ZFVF0xOzkVVuMFB0JMpfjyub 07uZzZZ0hIjjX1PhCIxOqWmu0mVME6Ym9cejTrm+qzuKdOZ9msma3aQwtJMVbzPeZAHVyDdmgTP 3+zAxjyqI5ubgTmpjZog= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:4e81:: with SMTP id c123mr16586278vkb.20.1607441837089; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 07:37:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxOom2WshpzcnOiS8n35N6Mln0Y3lMjb5/9UgnpIk0XcJ+0lwVBi/IjyGUupabG+SqXNVGljjrhosN6FEIufxA= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:4e81:: with SMTP id c123mr16586256vkb.20.1607441836931; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 07:37:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201207173319.1397740-1-thomas@monjalon.net> In-Reply-To: <20201207173319.1397740-1-thomas@monjalon.net> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:37:05 +0100 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev , Bruce Richardson Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] devtools: avoid installing static binaries 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" On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 6:33 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > When testing compilation and checking ABI compatibility, > there is no real need of static binaries eating disks. > The static linkage of applications are tested with GCC and Clang, > plus some examples are statically linked. > The after-installation build test is limited to "helloworld" example. > Note the meson static build test was already limited to "l3fwd" example. > > The ABI compatibility is checked on shared libraries, so no need > running this test a second time on builds intended for static linking. > However, limiting ABI check to "shared builds" means all test cases > must have a "shared build" occurence. > As a consequence the 32-bit build test is switched to shared linking. I see no reason to tie the ABI check to default-library. What about the mingw target? What you want is to avoid doing duplicate ABI checks. This happens for the gcc/clang x86 builds, so I'd rather control the ABI checks out of the build() function (passing a new parameter?). -- David Marchand