Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) replied on github web page:
example/traffic_mgmt/Makefile.am
line 6
@@ -1,9 +1,5 @@
include $(top_srcdir)/example/Makefile.inc
-bin_PROGRAMS = odp_traffic_mgmt$(EXEEXT)
-odp_traffic_mgmt_LDFLAGS = $(AM_LDFLAGS) -static
-odp_traffic_mgmt_CFLAGS = $(AM_CFLAGS) -I${top_srcdir}/example
+bin_PROGRAMS = odp_traffic_mgmt
Comment:
What for? `_PROGRAMS` will automatically receive `$(EXEEXT)` if necessary, so
do `$(TESTS)`. What purpose do these `$(EXEEXT)` surve at this point?
> muvarov wrote
> Looks like some misunderstanding here. I wrote that we should keep ${EXEEXT}
>> muvarov wrote
>> @lumag I still do not understand do you remove extensions? That link
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/EXEEXT.html says that
>> there is no way to do it anyhow different. I think removing will break
>> existence functionality.
>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote:
>>> It is used as is by linux-dpdk. Other platforms may also benefit from
>>> atomic-related checks, in which case this test should just be generatlized.
>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote:
>>>> I will drop remaining EXEEXT from examples, where necessary. Looks like I
>>>> skipped some. Stripping EXEEXT from test (and platform/l-g/test) will come
>>>> in a separate patch.
>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote:
>>>>> It will fail with this PR. I should fix that.
>>>>>> muvarov wrote
>>>>>> make check will build it. Optional change.
>>>>>>> muvarov wrote
>>>>>>> this patch needs to be revising. EXEEXT somewhere is remove somewhere
>>>>>>> exist. EXEEXT was added by Kalrey to run make check on their platform
>>>>>>> where they can not run binaries without EXEEXT. I think we should leave
>>>>>>> extensions in the code.
>>>>>>>> muvarov wrote
>>>>>>>> to compile tests you need odp library compiled. To execute performance
>>>>>>>> tests examples are needed to be compile. "." defines order for
>>>>>>>> parallel make. Moving test_common to the top should bake parallel make.
>>>>>>>>> muvarov wrote
>>>>>>>>> this atomic things are specific to linux-generic. Are you panning to
>>>>>>>>> use they anywhere else?
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> @Bill-Fischofer-Linaro updated
>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> just for the sake of 80 chars limit? Fine, I will update this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's wrong with factoring this like:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>>>>>> VALIDATION_TESTDIR=platform/$ODP_PLATFORM/test/validation
>>>>>>>>>>>> PLATFORM_VALIDATION=${TEST_SRC_DIR}/../../$VALIDATION_TESTDIR
>>>>>>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to solve the line length problem cleanly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not in a clean way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkpatch flags this line as being > 80 chars. Can it not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> split into two lines or otherwise shortened?
https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/213#discussion_r144545476
updated_at 2017-10-13 12:57:08
