From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6A141C61; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:52:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3C8410D3; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:52:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-yb1-f177.google.com (mail-yb1-f177.google.com [209.85.219.177]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25918410D0 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 15:52:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yb1-f177.google.com with SMTP id b132so5488473ybc.12 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:52:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=T/zfKfJcvWKnawdjjlBYAL48RQPZ9ZcYoIvgw6tYrwc=; b=N1lIsa02K69/+dkk/Gdkm36Qs30kpX1tT3fO/j1K6lbmq+9dwbw+Ul2GXF7IQ+yxZD C0rOSRoridiPphz/hFh5YITOgCkYzdVPSBJPet4T5IJ5DG+Fov07luZaZzbmVIYieM+q 5QTcQoQtG9LmZVVe/RAzl2ZQhApUFlhBG9oA+l/O30PvakBP1aIe368I/vPO9/CCr8oc uUF2hWWyZX5Qrdzryy1gcx/1quInlzAlD/HmXs8qxPOMc3v4FSWfLmricBiy2GFd+gLy WfCYNBg2hY3cvRQBR0WXTtahXlcK7gE2zezBNWzOCK7lo0Uh79K/YallLa0fT0aDZmAf tbeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=T/zfKfJcvWKnawdjjlBYAL48RQPZ9ZcYoIvgw6tYrwc=; b=V9BFlGF2ZXTy3Ej2ZeYC0hbHK7RULqw/dWF2830xNOem0WsNWnta3Gxsr4MTp7dQ5/ sJioPzrzWa5t3kiLBldNKKQfI3kCF8/clt8BFhSJ3hMRAk7YZ94jHW8Xy2eSLiOgLiA5 SPmPgPrHHpHYgN9+XVwCrFUne3Beo3eL2o0EtH+E9kFjDCA4Apr0nPcK8bVewAEUsK1D BNuQBXJ/b7qyX+BQqrcCXplJwH1N2C/U3pFUsVXRBcaRF3eEZiaieH4N3iGkT7pVkdU+ AaCrEJVxNTokHxCBGhCSKdnZM14ZZWpTQ8WMWtBQexuisXLtslsgT4PHK1TjzTUQONsi G3pw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVFaeHvqz+dYAF0ZDGIMJ01Lgo2bD2TkhrlrVqsh2RwJAep+5MS A/3nbKgmANRDsErINAj0GyuFB4kKOe2BiLwJsM4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+j7xCMX1rusTlTkLIQzY9YRYWZdFfheyhlJ9B/QK8ONoIQ+0yWoEGFmQLiBo4iKi46Vo5EWYcdyKjplZbvxlU= X-Received: by 2002:a25:f905:0:b0:8be:c52b:a7db with SMTP id q5-20020a25f905000000b008bec52ba7dbmr998679ybe.144.1676040738402; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 06:52:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230112113556.47485-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Ben Magistro Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 09:52:06 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds To: Bruce Richardson , Tyler Retzlaff Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, david.marchand@redhat.com, mb@smartsharesystems.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d774bd05f459a478" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --000000000000d774bd05f459a478 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Adding Tyler Sort of following along on the RFC: introduce atomics [1] it seems like the decision to use 99 vs 11 here could make an impact on the approach taken in that thread. 1) http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-February/262042.html On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 1:00 PM Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:45:04AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote: > > In our case we have other libraries that we are using that have > > required us to specify a minimum c++ version (14/17 most recently for > > one) so it doesn't feel like a big ask/issue to us (provided things > > don't start conflicting...hah; not anticipating any issue). Our > > software is also used internally so we have a fair bit of control over > > how fast we can adopt changes. > > This got me wondering what some other projects in the DPDK ecosystem > > are saying/doing around language standards/gcc versions. So some > quick > > checking of the projects I am aware of/looked at/using... > > * trex: cannot find an obvious minimum gcc requirement > > * tldk: we are running our own public folk with several fixes, need to > > find time to solve the build sys change aspect to continue providing > > patches upstream; I know I have hit some places where it was easier to > > say the new minimum DPDK version is x at which point you just adopt > the > > minimum requirements of DPDK > > * ovs: looks to be comfortable with an older gcc still > > * seastar: seems to be the most aggressive with adopting language > > standards/compilers I've seen [1] and are asking for gcc 9+ and cpp17+ > > * ans: based on release 19.02 (2019), they are on gcc >= 5.4 [2] and > is > > the same on the main README file > > I do understand the concern, but if no one is voicing an > > opinion/objection does that mean they agree with/will not be affected > > by the change.... > > 1) [1]https://docs.seastar.io/master/md_compatibility.html > > 2) [2]https://github.com/ansyun/dpdk-ans/releases > > Cheers > > > Thanks for the info. > I also notice that since gcc 5, the default language version used - if none > is explicitly specified - is gnu11 (or higher for later versions). Clang > seems to do something similar, but not sure at what point it started > defaulting to a standard >=c11. > > /Bruce > --000000000000d774bd05f459a478 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Adding Tyler

Sort of following along on= the RFC: introduce atomics [1] it seems like the decision to use 99 vs 11 = here could make an impact on the approach taken in that thread.
<= br>

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 1:00 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> w= rote:
On Fri, Fe= b 03, 2023 at 11:45:04AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 In our case we have other libraries that we are using tha= t have
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 required us to specify a minimum c++ version (14/17 most = recently for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 one) so it doesn't feel like a big ask/issue to us (p= rovided things
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 don't start conflicting...hah; not anticipating any i= ssue).=C2=A0 Our
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 software is also used internally so we have a fair bit of= control over
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 how fast we can adopt changes.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 This got me wondering what some other projects in the DPD= K ecosystem
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 are saying/doing around language standards/gcc versions.= =C2=A0 So some quick
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 checking of the projects I am aware of/looked at/using...=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 * trex: cannot find an obvious minimum gcc requirement >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 * tldk: we are running our own public folk with several f= ixes, need to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 find time to solve the build sys change aspect to continu= e providing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 patches upstream; I know I have hit some places where it = was easier to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 say the new minimum DPDK version is x at which point you = just adopt the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 minimum requirements of DPDK
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 * ovs: looks to be comfortable with an older gcc still >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 * seastar: seems to be the most aggressive with adopting = language
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 standards/compilers I've seen [1] and are asking for = gcc 9+ and cpp17+
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 * ans: based on release 19.02 (2019), they are on gcc >= ;=3D 5.4 [2] and is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 the same on the main README file
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I do understand the concern, but if no one is voicing an<= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 opinion/objection does that mean they agree with/will not= be affected
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 by the change....
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 1) [1]https://docs.seastar.io/= master/md_compatibility.html
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 2) [2]https://github.com/ansyun/dpdk-an= s/releases
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Cheers
>
Thanks for the info.
I also notice that since gcc 5, the default language version used - if none=
is explicitly specified - is gnu11 (or higher for later versions). Clang seems to do something similar, but not sure at what point it started
defaulting to a standard >=3Dc11.

/Bruce
--000000000000d774bd05f459a478--