[dpdk-dev] Any benefit of using DPDK's makefiles instead of using your own and linking against DPDK library
mrramazani at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 16:06:46 CET 2014
Considering the fact that there are many developers using c++, I
totally persuade/agree with the addition of c++ functionality, and
thanks to Thomas's guidelines it won't create any overhead in usage.
All the Best,
On 1/14/14, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> Hello Venky,
> 14/01/2014 14:22, Venkatesan, Venky:
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
>> > 14/01/2014 08:02, Daniel Kan:
>> > > I already have existing makefiles for my current application. I would
>> > > like to integrate dpdk into the application. ’m wondering if there
>> > > is
>> > > any benefit to use dpdk’s makefiles instead of using your own
>> > > makefile
>> > > and linking against the library (e.g. libintel_dpdk.a). Thanks.
>> > DPDK makefiles have 2 benefits:
>> > - provide a framework
>> > - automatically set CFLAGS and LDFLAGS according to your configuration
>> > If you don't need a framework, I think it's better to extract
>> > compilation
>> > flags with something like pkg-config.
>> > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/pkg-config
>> > A patch for a such feature would be welcome :)
>> One other thing to think about - as we add more functionality into DPDK
>> (e.g. new libraries for other packet functions), we integrate them into
>> the DPDK framework. If you extract compilation flags and setup your own
>> makefile, you would have to do this re-integration every time you want to
>> pick up a new release. The same applies to newer files added etc. etc.
>> That is the downside.
> I disagree.
> If the Makefile of the application, use a DPDK script or pkg-config to read
> the flags from a generated file, the integration is done only once.
> This guide explains the logic and how to implement it:
More information about the dev