From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D3A4238D;
	Fri, 13 Jan 2023 18:17:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FA9410EF;
	Fri, 13 Jan 2023 18:17:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C859240E03
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2023 18:17:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1086)
 id 19FE620DED16; Fri, 13 Jan 2023 09:17:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 19FE620DED16
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com;
 s=default; t=1673630267;
 bh=Qj98bRxG+e9xvK61bSvb8vGV1krBbk1YPFh45dw5wxE=;
 h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=o6vi3fJ7k0FK0xGCi8YJE+XyYy73vUJFVayIt9QIupBkeqtPt/NettrDZ6w5HyBeg
 GwYaCf0F2AUQ46vvcYajJ+jPBehapVEiKfZiYpsCQ/ISAe91tL8u1fIr5DDCR9CuUm
 i4ll3h62UjdPv3h5rfo5gJXM3UvTNrQV5+E9VrAM=
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 09:17:47 -0800
From: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Cc: Ben Magistro <koncept1@gmail.com>,
 Morten =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: RFC abstracting atomics
Message-ID: <20230113171747.GB28592@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
References: <Y70tALGqxUHqYBup@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20230110201033.GC21476@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
 <Y76LE919pT0XSZmV@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87651@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
 <Y76j/2+kUU29l/qN@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87656@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
 <Y77FIWp015TLGTMc@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87659@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
 <CAKx8PBjbjoffvWF0Ky40-Ta39aPGL+dsBr3iKrCi8GS-AU_gPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALBAE1MwCqwqapov7Ds4T+2ijpWq=-j4mF7gouj1D+B8f640GA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1MwCqwqapov7Ds4T+2ijpWq=-j4mF7gouj1D+B8f640GA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:40:20PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 7:49 PM Ben Magistro <koncept1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > As a user/developer I'll put a vote on Morten's side here.  There are other libraries we utilize that have stated x.y.z is the last version that will support w, beginning on version l.m.n it will be standard o.  I personally don't think a project asking for C11 support at a minimum would be unreasonable or overly burdensome.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> Instead of polluting new DPDK code for legacy applications(If some
> reason they want absolutely want to move latest and greatest DPDK), I
> think it should be possible for legacy application selectivity turning
> on/of like "#pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-std=c++11"
>  or worst case  move DPDK function in wrapper(which is already case in
> most of the applications) in their app and compile the wrapper only
> with C11

so just a caution that this mail thread isn't proposing any bump in C
standard requirement, it's about introducing an atomics abstraction
though it's really easy to start talking about standard C i understand.

let's move discussion about dpdk minimum standard C to the thread Bruce
posted yesterday to avoid distraction about atomics abstraction
integration.

Bruce's thread addressing setting the minimum standard is here.
http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-January/258925.html

thanks!