From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dwilder Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc64: fix compilation of when AltiVec is enabled Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 10:58:00 -0800 Message-ID: <395b5a36d9b0582179cadc825e351d51@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <2547699.pxo2WhrkVo@xps> <8589266.XCptXWt5vM@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable Cc: Pradeep Satyanarayana , dev@dpdk.org, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com, Luca Boccassi , Chao Zhu , Christian Ehrhardt , TYOS@jp.ibm.com To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D340D201 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 19:55:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wA7InXgD061042 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:55:27 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nm49p3kck-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2018 13:55:27 -0500 Received: from localhost by e35.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 18:55:26 -0000 In-Reply-To: <8589266.XCptXWt5vM@xps> 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 2018-11-07 02:03, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 05/11/2018 22:20, Pradeep Satyanarayana: >> From: Thomas Monjalon >> > 30/08/2018 13:58, Christian Ehrhardt: >> > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 Takeshi T Yoshimura wrote: >> > > > Hi, >> > > > I could reproduce the issue you reported in 18.08 with my ppc64le >> > > > box with RedHat 7.5 and GCC4.8. >> > > > The patch resolved the issue in my environment. Thanks! >> > > >> > > I added your test (tanks) and Adrien's extensive review/discussion as >> > > tags and also addressed a few checkpatch findings. >> > > V2 is up on the list now ... >> > > >> > > > I am a bit newbie in dpdk-dev, but I will try contacting Chao >> > > > and other IBM guys... Sorry for our slow reply. >> > > >> > > Thanks for your participation Takeshi, >> > > we at least now have had a few replies after Thomas used the >> > > superpowers of "CPT. CAPSLOCK" \o/. >> > > >> > > I also have a call later today to make sure this is brought up >> > > inside IBM to make sure someone is maintaining it for real. >> > >> > Summary of the situation: >> > - I used caps lock on August 30th >> > - We got replies on the ML in the next 2 days (Alfredo, Chao, Takes= hi) >> > - On September 3rd, Adrien raised a major issue for C++ with the fi= x v3 >> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-September/110733.html >> > - Another email about a possible GCC fix on September 5th (David Wi= lder) >>=20 >> As Dave mentioned that is only expected in GCC 9. >>=20 >> > - There was a private reply on September 27th, confirming an IBM su= pport >> > - and nothing else >> > >> > Nobody at IBM requests to get a compilation fix for ppc64. >>=20 >> Yes, we do need fixes for ppc64. >>=20 >> (1)=20 >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/110499.html >> (2)=20 >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-September/110961.html >>=20 >> Based on the above 2 URLs (tested both by Takeshi and David Wiler), we >> assumed that it would get picked up in 18.11. >> We have been more focussed on 17.11 (and likely dropped >> the ball on 18.11) >> since 17.11 is an LTS release and we have had lots of problems on=20 >> ppc64. >=20 > Note that 18.11 is also LTS. >=20 >> Should be submitting patch to fix those issues shortly. >=20 > Sorry, I have some doubts for two reasons: > - track records > - technical reality: there is no perfect solution outside of GCC >=20 >> We have built 18.11-rc1 with the fix above (1), and it does work on >> ppc64le. >=20 > But it would break C++ applications. >=20 >> An updated version of: >>=20 >> (3)=20 >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/109926.html >>=20 >> also builds on ppc64. The latter has the advantage of possibly not >> breaking existing applications. >=20 I am not seeing any build breaks on upstream code with the=20 net-mlx5-fix-build-on-PPC64.patch applied. > But it fixes only mlx5. > stdbool is used in many other places. > Which PMDs are you compiling? CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ARK_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_AXGBE_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BNXT_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_CXGBE_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_DPAA2_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ENETC_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_ENA_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_EM_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IGB_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_I40E_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_AVF_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MLX5_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NFP_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_QEDE_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_THUNDERX_NICVF_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_LIO_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_OCTEONTX_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_VIRTIO_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_NETVSC_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_VDEV_NETVSC_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_IFC_PMD=3Dy CONFIG_RTE_TEST_PMD=3Dy > Are you compiling examples? Yes, no build issues seen. >=20 >> > And there was no issue raised after 18.11-rc1 release. >> > I guess it means DPDK is not used on ppc64. >> > In this case, we should mark the ppc port as unmaintained for 18.11. >> > >> > OR SHOULD I USE MY CAPS LOCK AGAIN? >>=20 >> Thanks for your patience while we iron out the issues. >> Hopefully, we don't need the CAPS LOCK again. >=20 > We have to mention the ppc64 incompatibility in 18.11 release notes. > Either it stays as is and we declare DPDK 18.11 not supported on > IBM platforms, or we fix it and document the limitations. If net-mlx5-fix-build-on-PPC64.patch is accepted I feel power can be=20 listed as supported for 18.11.