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 13C2C423AC;
	Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:23:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFEB140691;
	Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:23:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com
 (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D868D4014F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:23:08 +0100 (CET)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: RFC abstracting atomics
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:23:07 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87651@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
In-Reply-To: <Y76LE919pT0XSZmV@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: RFC abstracting atomics
Thread-Index: AdklpPhFan/nQbGHSiusTF/Xv+6F1gAAHw1A
References: <20230109225604.GA25566@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
 <Y70tALGqxUHqYBup@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20230110201033.GC21476@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
 <Y76LE919pT0XSZmV@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 "Tyler Retzlaff" <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>
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

> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2023 11.10
>=20
> One additional point that just became clear to me when I started
> thinking
> about upping our DPDK C-standard-baseline. We need to be careful what
> we
> are considering when we up our C baseline. We can mandate a specific
> compiler minimum and C version for compiling up DPDK itself, but I
> think we
> should not mandate that for the end applications.

Why not?

And do you consider this backwards compatibility a build time or run =
time requirement?

>=20
> That means that our header files, such as atomics, should not require
> C99
> or C11 even if the build of DPDK itself does. More specifically, even
> if we
> bump DPDK minimum to C11, we should still allow apps to build using
> older
> compiler settings.
>=20
> Therefore, we probably need to maintain non-C11 atomics code paths in
> headers beyond the point at which DPDK itself uses C11 as a code
> baseline.

Am I misunderstanding your suggestion here: Code can be C11, but all =
APIs and header files must be C89?

Wouldn't that also prevent DPDK inline functions from being C11?

>=20
> /Bruce