Hi Thomas,
There is no guarantee of primary part number (machine names) uniqueness between
implementors.
If we limit lookups to only machine names through primary part number we would
have a lot of repetitive defines.
Also, moving the arrays into the python script is not feasible as meson needs
to reparse the standard out from the python script
Currently, config is split into three parts :
1. Implementor specific defines.
2. Micro-arch specific compiler flags.
3. Micro-arch specific defines.
I think from a configurability point of view the above three are really
important for fine grained control.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Pavan.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
>Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 2:13 AM
>To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>
>Cc: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>;
>dev@dpdk.org; jerinjac...@gmail.com; ys...@mellanox.com;
>bruce.richard...@intel.com
>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/4] meson: add infra to support machine
>specific flags
>
>13/04/2019 08:24, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran:
>> > I was not confortable with this patch without being able to say why.
>> > Yesterday I spent more time to understand and see what may be improved.
>> > I agree it is late, so it won't block this patch for 19.05.
>> > Do you agree this file can be improved?
>>
>> Moving to the all to static config file is an option but we lose the
>> flexibility of runtime detecting the options and few of them are
>> probing at runtime based on gcc versions and mcpu combination etc.
>
>I think there is a misunderstanding.
>I'm suggesting to symplify arrays by indexing only by machine name.
>It should not change the behaviour.
>
>> I am not expert in meson area and not sure meson/python has better
>> data strcture for this other than list/array combo. If Bruce has any
>> feedback on this, then we will try to prototype it.
>>
>> > Please would you like to look at reworking during next cycle?
>> > Thanks
>
>
