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 8F11141D41; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:53:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2744304C; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:53:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2F44021F for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:53:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1086) id 2F41520B9C3E; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:53:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 2F41520B9C3E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1677092024; bh=MsdzTHI4yeAIIvFswn/4aqC8SCgsxrajrv/NQooC9D8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dlal7jBQN3mXyovSyJdojCPxF/tsaxOHzmgo0cpAcjNwAa4M/e1mpg3ke1ZxPIGpM /QRJCU14XMAbPs2HeRQAdGfCZVVUagoXQMtnBlqq8x6rEr3VjKauKPERWRnTjYsyRa apizk1J6W06tRVFzvnlaruMqkbkvZF3DQ6PTlhVQ= Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:53:44 -0800 From: Tyler Retzlaff To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, david.marchand@redhat.com, mb@smartsharesystems.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds Message-ID: <20230222185344.GB2702@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> References: <20230112113556.47485-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230112113556.47485-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 11:35:55AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > Traditionally, DPDK has never specified a minimum C standard used either > in DPDK builds or for applications using DPDK. Following discussion > on-list about C standards, this RFC attempts to start the process of > codifying what our standards expectations are. No code changes are made > by this RFC, instead only the build parameters are changed to explicitly > specify: > > * C99 standard is used to build DPDK itself. This is supported by all > supported compiler versions of GCC and Clang. > * The headers are checked for compatibility with gcc89 standard, which > was the default standard used by the oldest supported version of GCC. > DPDK headers do not build with the official C89 standard, and, to the > best of my knowledge, have never done so. subject to the technical board meeting 2023/02/22 in relation to atomics and adoption of C11 starting in 23.11 does anything stop us from conditionally enabling/defaulting -std=C11 for all platforms immediately except for RHEL/CentOS 7? so long as we don't actually start using C11 features we should be able to do this? or would we be worried that C11 feature use would creep in? just curious. > > Bruce Richardson (1): > build: increase minimum C standard for DPDK builds > > buildtools/chkincs/meson.build | 1 + > meson.build | 1 + > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > -- > 2.37.2