From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH] use generated flags for SSE and AVX checks Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:23:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1480952058-13591-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <2241188.EjHfKBdCQS@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dpdk-dev To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AF52BE6 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:23:06 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <2241188.EjHfKBdCQS@xps13> Content-Language: en-US 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 12/5/2016 3:59 PM, thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com (Thomas Monjalon) wrote: > 2016-12-05 16:34, Thomas Monjalon: >> Clean up the code to always use the flags RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_* >> generated by the DPDK makefile rte.cpuflags.mk. > > This patch does not work because RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_* are generated > for the whole library when including rte.vars.mk. > So the flags are not accurate when overriding the flags per file like > it is done in rte_acl. > > So the questions are: > - should we use RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_? > - should we override the flags per file? > - will we be able to use the function attribute __target__? > Hi Thomas, This patch is waiting for a comment for two years, is it still valid, if not can we mark it as rejected? For record, it is: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/17684/ Thanks, ferruh