From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: use generic march on arm64 when using
 'default' machine
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 13:45:56 +0000
Message-ID: <1546868756.6022.21.camel@debian.org>
References: <20181224125627.25690-1-bluca@debian.org>
 <20190107122401.GA14912@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com, stable@dpdk.org
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190107122401.GA14912@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Mon, 2019-01-07 at 12:24 +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 01:56:27PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > When building for generic distribution we need a stable baseline
> > architecture, or depending on the build worker the result will
> > vary.
> >=20
> > Force the default flags if the user explicitly sets
> > marchine=3Ddefault
>=20
> typo: marchine
>=20
> > at configuration time.
> >=20
> > Fixes: b1d48c41189a ("build: support ARM with meson")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> > ---
> > =C2=A0config/arm/meson.build | 7 ++++++-
> > =C2=A01 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >=20
> > diff --git a/config/arm/meson.build b/config/arm/meson.build
> > index dae55d6b2..fa21a2fd2 100644
> > --- a/config/arm/meson.build
> > +++ b/config/arm/meson.build
> > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> > =C2=A0march_opt =3D '-march=3D@0@'.format(machine)
> > =C2=A0
> > =C2=A0arm_force_native_march =3D false
> > +arm_force_default_march =3D machine =3D=3D 'default'
>=20
> Do we need a new variable here? Given it only seems to be used once
> below,
> I think just having the boolean expression directly in the if
> statement is
> clearer. If you do keep the variable, suggest putting braces around
> the
> comparison, otherwise at first glance it looks like a chained
> assignment
> like you get in C e.g. x =3D y =3D 0;

Eheh it looks like I was a bit too hasty - I now remember that the main
reason I added a new variable is that the "machine" variable gets
overridden just before  the if branch, so the original value is lost. I
could refactor and rename, but that would be more intrusive so I had
opted to just do what was already done for the other "force" case.

--=20
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi