From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: Any benefit of using DPDK's makefiles instead of using your own and linking against DPDK library Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:02:00 +0100 Message-ID: <52D7E658.7050403@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Daniel Kan Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Hi Dan, On 01/14/2014 09:40 PM, Daniel Kan wrote: > On a similar note, is there any particular reason why many macros such > as RTE_MACHINE_XXX are passed as flags to the compiler instead of > being defined in rte_config.h? I guess it's because in case of local compilation (called "native"), these flags can be generated dynamically in mk/rte.toolchain-compat.mk from gcc or icc compiler version and from the CPUFLAGS variable (see machine/native/rte.vars.mk). You can also check this older thread: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-January/001053.html Regards, Olivier