[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mk: gcc -march support for intel processors code names
Pattan, Reshma
reshma.pattan at intel.com
Mon Oct 10 17:21:57 CEST 2016
Hi Thomas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 3:26 PM
> To: Liu, Yong <yong.liu at intel.com>; Pattan, Reshma
> <reshma.pattan at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mk: gcc -march support for intel processors
> code names
>
> 2016-09-28 10:54, Liu, Yong:
> > Tested-by: Yong Liu <yong.liu at intel.com>
> > FangFang Wei <fangfangx.wei at intel.com>
> [...]
> > Description: Build test on different distributions
> > Command / instruction:
> > Verify build pass on listed distributions.
> >
> > OS GCC Kernel
> > Ubuntu 16.04 5.4.0 4.4.0-36-generic
> > Fedora23 5.3.1 4.2.3-300
> > Fedora24 6.1.1 4.6.4-301
> > Ubuntu 12.04 4.6.3 3.8.0-29
> > Ubuntu 12.04 i686 4.6.3 3.8.0-29
> > Ubuntu 14.04 4.8.4 3.16.0-30
> > Ubuntu 14.04 i686 4.8.4 3.16.0-30
> > Fedora18 4.7.2 3.6.10-4
> > Fedora18 i686 4.7.2 3.6.10-4
> > Fedora20 4.8.2 3.15.6-200
> > Fedora20 i686 4.8.3 3.11.0
> > Suse11SP2 4.5.1 3.0.13-0.2
> > Suse12SP3 4.7.2 3.7.10-1.1
> > RHEL7.0 4.8.2 3.10.0-123
> > RHEL7.2 4.8.5 3.10.0-327
> > CentOS7.0 4.8.5 3.10.0-327
> > FreeBSD10.0 4.8.4 10.0-RELEASE
> > FreeBSD10.3 4.8.5 10.3-RELEASE
>
> I do not understand this test.
> This patch is dropping a lot of optimizations with compilers older than 4.9 !
>
> Why not recommend GCC 4.9 and keep the graceful degradation for older
> versions, at least for one more year, even if it is not optimal for newer
> architectures?
I am ok with the idea, so should I send latest patch by keeping the code in mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.toolchain-compat.mk untouched/intact?
Thanks,
Reshma
More information about the dev
mailing list