From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix static build link ordering Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 21:32:51 +0530 Message-ID: <20170113160250.GB17956@localhost.localdomain> References: <1484207214-13638-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <6167bd74-c515-fc12-744d-9168a633c646@intel.com> <20170113032155.GA31838@localhost.localdomain> <2563842.f8ghPspXGG@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Ferruh Yigit , , To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2563842.f8ghPspXGG@xps13> 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 Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:53:46PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2017-01-13 08:51, Jerin Jacob: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 03:27:30PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > On 1/12/2017 1:58 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:26:08AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > >> 2017-01-12 13:16, Jerin Jacob: > > > >>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB),y) > > > >>> _LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IXGBE_PMD) += -lrte_pmd_ixgbe > > > >>> +endif > > > >> > > > >> _LDLIBS is an internal variable of rte.app.mk. > > > >> Please could you check that there is no issue when using LDLIBS instead > > > >> of _LDLIBS? > > > > > > LDLIBS is not helping the situation as LDLIBS comes before the _LDLIBS-y > > mk/rte.app.mk:LDLIBS += $(_LDLIBS-y) $(CPU_LDLIBS) $(EXTRA_LDLIBS) > > > > But moving to EXTRA_LDLIBS looks OK.But it has to be under CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IXGBE_PMD > > > > Thomas, Ferruh > > Let me know if you have any objection on below mentioned diff > > > > -ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB),y) > > -_LDLIBS-$(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IXGBE_PMD) += -lrte_pmd_ixgbe > > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IXGBE_PMD),y) > > +EXTRA_LDLIBS += -lrte_pmd_ixgbe > > endif > > You need to keep the shared lib check. > Anyway, EXTRA_LDLIBS should be reserved to users and not used in a Makefile. > I prefer your initial patch using _LDLIBS. > > Any objection to merge initial proposal? from my side, No