From: Ben Magistro <koncept1@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, david.marchand@redhat.com,
mb@smartsharesystems.com, roretzla@linux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:45:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKx8PBjfAHZ1pb79Y4U0TrC5NnaqzPu+Uwg_3u+DBDQ612E8zg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y90jtNQbpXU2SsdA@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2927 bytes --]
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) https://docs.seastar.io/master/md_compatibility.html
2) https://github.com/ansyun/dpdk-ans/releases
Cheers
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:09 AM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:09:14AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote:
> > Since this topic keeps coming up in other threads I'll chime in with
> my
> > $0.01 here. We've been using CentOS 7 for awhile (and working on
> > migrating off) but have had to leverage devtoolset/llvmtoolset for
> > various reasons. I remember a discussion of installing a different
> > compiler coming up but don't remember which thread that was in/what
> the
> > outcome was. While I'd like to just brush over C7 and say there is a
> > compatible compiler available so just make the change I also realize
> > that making that change could be quite disruptive to existing code
> > bases.
> > However, the 22.11 LTS will be EOL in Nov 2024. CentOS 7 is EOL Jun
> > 2024. For the 23.x series and going forward I don't think starting
> > with a C11 requirement is an unreasonable ask.
> >
> Thanks for that input. If we drop support for Centos/RHEL 7, I think we
> should be ok to pass -std=c11 for the build of DPDK.
>
> Have you any thoughts on the second part of the c11 move - where our
> headers require c11 support and therefore may require that the end user
> builds their own code using -std=c11? This latter part is the bit that
> concerns me a little, as I feel it may be problematic for some with older
> codebases.
>
> /Bruce
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3673 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-03 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-12 11:35 Bruce Richardson
2023-01-12 11:35 ` [RFC PATCH 1/1] build: increase minimum C standard " Bruce Richardson
2023-01-12 12:42 ` Morten Brørup
2023-01-12 12:47 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-01-12 15:06 ` Morten Brørup
2023-01-12 17:04 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-02-03 14:09 ` [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement " Ben Magistro
2023-02-03 15:09 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-02-03 16:45 ` Ben Magistro [this message]
2023-02-03 18:00 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-02-10 14:52 ` Ben Magistro
2023-02-10 23:39 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-02-22 18:53 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-02-23 9:44 ` Bruce Richardson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAKx8PBjfAHZ1pb79Y4U0TrC5NnaqzPu+Uwg_3u+DBDQ612E8zg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=koncept1@gmail.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).