Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] devtools: avoid installing static binaries

2021-01-15 Thread Thomas Monjalon
15/01/2021 16:24, David Marchand: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:01 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 13/01/2021 20:05, Thomas Monjalon: > > > When testing compilation and checking ABI compatibility, > > > there is no real need of static binaries eating disks. > > > > > > The static linkage of applicati

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] devtools: avoid installing static binaries

2021-01-15 Thread David Marchand
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:01 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 13/01/2021 20:05, Thomas Monjalon: > > When testing compilation and checking ABI compatibility, > > there is no real need of static binaries eating disks. > > > > The static linkage of applications was already well tested, > > though the

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] devtools: avoid installing static binaries

2021-01-13 Thread Thomas Monjalon
13/01/2021 20:05, Thomas Monjalon: > When testing compilation and checking ABI compatibility, > there is no real need of static binaries eating disks. > > The static linkage of applications was already well tested, > though the static examples tested with meson were limited to "l3fwd" only. > The

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] devtools: avoid installing static binaries

2021-01-13 Thread Thomas Monjalon
When testing compilation and checking ABI compatibility, there is no real need of static binaries eating disks. The static linkage of applications was already well tested, though the static examples tested with meson were limited to "l3fwd" only. The static build test with make is limited to "hell