[dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] kvargs: adding a module definition file
Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
jerinj at marvell.com
Tue Mar 26 14:37:33 CET 2019
On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 10:58 +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:32:34AM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 23:02 -0700, Anand Rawat wrote:
> > > adding a DEF file for kvargs to specify the exports
> > > for the creation of the shared library.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Anand Rawat <anand.rawat at intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Pallavi Kadam <pallavi.kadam at intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Ranjit Menon <ranjit.menon at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > lib/librte_kvargs/rte_kvargs_exports.def | 7 +++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 lib/librte_kvargs/rte_kvargs_exports.def
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_kvargs/rte_kvargs_exports.def
> > > b/lib/librte_kvargs/rte_kvargs_exports.def
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000..265d3cc9a
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_kvargs/rte_kvargs_exports.def
> > Maintaining two separate files (.map and .def) for shared
> > library definition will be pain full.
> Yes, though I'd question how much more painful it is than having to
> a separate map file anyway - just consider the number of patches that
It is painful due to the fact that, If it is windows ONLY file then
developer need to test on Windows as well as it may break Windows.
If it is a common file, at least, it will be tested on one platform.
So responsibly wise it is a clean partition between windows eal
maintainers vs generic library maintainers.
> been submitted over the years which failed shared library build
> because map
> file updates were forgotten.
> However, my hope is that down the road we can have the def file
> from the map file (or potentially vice versa). Perhaps the meson
> module could be used to allow us to script it a bit.
Make sense. Do we want to support shared lib for Windows for the first
version? or Can we live with static lib till we find a proper solution.
I do believe the base Windows Helloworld support needs to added this
release in main repo and add the subsequent features step by step.
I would treat, shared lib as subsequent feature if it is not clean.
> > # Is it possible to add neutral file format if windows is not happy
> > with .map file?
> > # I am not sure, How we can express "EXPERIMENTAL" tag with .def
> > file.
> > # It is good to check, How OTHER cross platform libraries
> > addressing
> > this problem
> A wider question is whether it is possible at all to have ABI
> associated with functions? I didn't find any mention of it in the
> documentations, and if it's not possible, then the question of how to
> an experimental version is moot, I think.
Yes, Waiting for the comments from Wider audience.
More information about the dev