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 0FE4FA0032;
	Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:32:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D634068B;
	Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:32:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8890740150
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:32:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1086)
 id 9DD3620BE4A4; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 00:32:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 9DD3620BE4A4
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com;
 s=default; t=1645086725;
 bh=qSy2OzCp4Kdzvr82cHq+i85ZIVXFUJ0EzhMDnk6gj9E=;
 h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=Dy07RYOo3XebFXYA3u2iWnFVIiATA8v+Q4oXQpIIxVpyuz9PYxXBuy/KvTOZJl50m
 9boQ4ofnTGhkhGhYQHOA6weCM+QY0P69nTNuW7cHKxcgquS4+7aVnl55DkJZKHvzBs
 gaeuEAqNLpOZjew/Z14AuUuIhz+N6VTBgdg6YFVE=
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 00:32:05 -0800
From: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Morten =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Eliminate zero length arrays in DPDK
Message-ID: <20220217083205.GE1815@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
References: <000501d82321$7a92cd24$0a04a8c0@smartsharesys.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <000501d82321$7a92cd24$0a04a8c0@smartsharesys.local>
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 Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> My answer is at the end.Sent from a smartphone. Please pardon brevity and spelling.

> I am therefore wondering if we needto have our public headers C90-compliant?/BruceWe are publicly using C11 for atomics [1]. I'm not sure if that also implies that we are requiring C11 generally. Otherwise,  I agree with your concerns about old code bases. [1]https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/03/26/dpdk-adopts-the-c11-memory-model

we aren't actually using C11 atomics. we are using gcc builtin atomics
that follow the C11 memory model for accessing atomics.

so strictly speaking we don't need to make the minimum a C11 compiler.

i suspect a lot of pushback would occur if we made C11 a minimum.  so
for atomics i would make the suggestion that we abstract atomics to
permit C11 atomics to be used when a C11 compiler with stdatomic is
available.