From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBFB1B398 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 18:32:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90E8217DD; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 03 Jan 2019 12:32:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=Msg38QoC4o95eP0u+XvUpVCyEc0+CFqd6Frm4sKPAPY=; b=pzlaDNHRK348 V/Xm359HvYgRiMp4G4DSstwWUfmE65vXgHshBgu79sx/5bnLjj26eff4614n3Gaj EQSuNJEl5wNfci+O4/g8sCar5I2yBnLP/7TCAtT6EWX0oro5DnNt0JQlfeez8j0a b6qazfiZkLHjVaGmhHO13jfcf+ruc1Y= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Msg38QoC4o95eP0u+XvUpVCyEc0+CFqd6Frm4sKPA PY=; b=iX7NPs0gOve6zzgyMVKYJS/uE4+SGy3swMLNlrrH941Z1o1T7RBctkldR BSXKNFY8oJxQtWwsJ6Bn19weuhnPjkhhacHjyUoNZhkBOXcK0dIQx3Y+6cxi2BuL VHbVD4d7immLPtmW1CPHH97fGL+YF3YD7mTaANr3fGOk1YPLwMGi2VmcWvZMO3FB bdsqJ7X3dflKBNLPodfnTNJcNCo5RlnWhmLrogSZG1JKriDG7MFsklEHlsRXCsST xoo2LTh5hVS3V+dtc5Po2LK0kj/roPy8snSHH53P1sCb91rUhtMp6zgFQJgnMB+Y WLFHRCmKaHtC+i5nYRtixJTo1cdFA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrudelgdegvdculddtuddrgedtkedrtddtmd cutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C8CC9E464E; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:32:46 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jason Messer Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Harini Ramakrishnan , Omar Cardona , 'Ranjit Menon' , 'Mattias =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F6nnblom=27?= , 'Jeff Shaw' , "dev@dpdk.org" , Jeffrey Tippet , "Deval, Manasi" Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 18:32:45 +0100 Message-ID: <10666701.GC44MuPZhG@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <7824863.MkUOD0j12R@xps> <005401d4a32e$2f20f860$8d62e920$@networkplumber.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Compiler for Windows X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 17:32:50 -0000 Hi Jason, We need to get facts in order to do a good decision. Please, let's give detailed feedback for each option. 03/01/2019 18:10, Jason Messer: > +Jeffrey, Manasi > > We will get the most traction from the Windows developer community > if we use msvc. The only thing preventing that last time was > GNU extensions used in DPDK source which were not ISO C standards > compliant. I think the main issue is that MSVC is not C99 compliant. > We were also experimenting with Clang/LLVM running natively on Windows > host but ran into a bunch of issues (maybe others made further progress?). Chromium is built with clang on Windows, so I wonder what prevents us to use it? > GCC using Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) would be an interesting > option and could be a secondary option for MSVC for Windows developers. I thought GCC on WSL would build a Linux binary? Can we build a Windows native binary with it? What about mingw-w64? Is there any drawback? > From: Stephen Hemminger > > What about Gcc under the WSL thing (ie Linux emulation in Windows). > > Much better than Cygwin type stuff. > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > > Hi, > > > > > > We need to gather inputs about the pros/cons of the C compilers > > > available for Windows. > > > > > > Interesting criterias could be: > > > - ease of use > > > - availability > > > - standards compliance > > > - performance > > > > > > When the comparison will be complete, we should publish it in the doc/ > > > directory, while porting DPDK to Windows. > > > > > > I start with few data: > > > > > > * gcc|clang on cygwin > > > > > > - not native > > > > > > * gcc/mingw > > > > > > * gcc/mingw-w64 > > > > > > * clang/mingw-w64 > > > > > > * clang --target=x86_64-windows-msvc > > > > > > * icc > > > > > > - not freely available > > > > > > * msvc > > > > > > - native > > > - specific command line > > > - not C99