Re: [PATCH 3/4] eal/arm: Enable lpm/table/pipeline libs

[Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:57:10PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-12-02 22:23, Jerin Jacob:
> > 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?
> 
> If you are convinced that it is the best way to write a generic code, yes.
> I think the most important question is to know what is the best solution
> for performance and maintainability. The API/ABI questions will be considered

IMO, a true portable platform-independent library may need rte_128i kind
of abstracttion to represent a 128bit SIMD variable. I can send an RFC
patch to see the changes required across the DPDK.


> after.
> 
> Thanks for your involvement guys.