From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eal/armv8: fix poly64/128 compile issue
	in old GCC(<4.9.0)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:31:11 +0300
Message-ID: <7214394.Gg28SKYvWX@xps>
References: <1499856619-21007-1-git-send-email-herbert.guan@arm.com>
 <11032881.QA85Xq1nMD@xps>
 <HE1PR08MB280983F651AE1C484F6D81B186A60@HE1PR08MB2809.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jianbo.liu@linaro.org, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com,
 nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com
To: Herbert Guan <Herbert.Guan@arm.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB210231E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:31:13 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR08MB280983F651AE1C484F6D81B186A60@HE1PR08MB2809.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

19/07/2017 11:21, Herbert Guan:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > 13/07/2017 05:16, Herbert Guan:
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/rte_vect.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/rte_vect.h
> > > +#if (GCC_VERSION < 40900)
> > > +typedef uint64_t poly64_t;
> > > +typedef uint64x2_t poly64x2_t;
> > > +typedef uint8_t poly128_t __attribute__((vector_size(16),
> > > aligned(16)));
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > I think a better fix would be to switch to DPDK types
> > like rte_v128u8_t.
> 
> Thanks a lot for your review and comment.
> But I have some concern in this approach.  "poly128_t" is for
> ARM64 platform only and in fact it's more likely that rte_v128u8_t
> (generic DPDK data type) could be defined from poly128_t
> (ARM data type) which seems more reasonable.

How poly128_t is different from rte_v128u8_t?
You are defining poly128_t as (vector_size(16),aligned(16))
and rte_v128u8_t is exactly that.
Is it interpreted differently with newer compilers?
In that case, you could at least fallback on rte_v128u8_t.