From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] eal/arm: Enable lpm/table/pipeline libs
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 22:23:05 +0530
Message-ID: <20151202165302.GA2452@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1448995276-9599-1-git-send-email-jianbo.liu@linaro.org>
 <CAP4Qi39aYhZ2xEcSaa8-cJTAyTOxeP3TDfYE_OzvyXCKnnkp4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151202143415.GA11757@localhost.localdomain>
 <2275492.7Tn0tJ2v06@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-bn1bon0088.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.56.111.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194E85913
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  2 Dec 2015 17:53:31 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2275492.7Tn0tJ2v06@xps13>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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>

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:40:13PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-12-02 20:04, Jerin Jacob:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:13:51PM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > > On 2 December 2015 at 18:39, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> > > > AND they include "rte_lpm.h"(it internally includes rte_vect.h)
> > > > that lead to multiple definition and its not good.
> > > >
> > > But you will have similar issue since "typedef int32x4_t __m128i"
> > > appears in both your patch and this header file.
> > 
> > I just tested it, it won't break, back to back "typedef int32x4_t __m128i"
> > is fine(unlike inline function).
> > 
> > my intention to keep __m128i "as is"  because changing the __m128i to rte_???
> > something would break the ABI.
> 
> Isn't it already broken in 2.2?

Does it mean, You would like to have rte_128i(or similar) kind of
abstraction to represent 128bit SIMD variable in DPDK?