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 9B5AA1B134 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 23:45:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2816922205; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 17:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 02 Jan 2019 17:45:26 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=xHxBHzpp9X w2S5ni51j5C3rEnzqcTQ39vU1Cb/76gzg=; b=eW6iJm5kSYw0dFI3ALhKRXOzkD sU8iIDYHCZm05ZvuEVwEYylSYdncJm86T2jg6fsHvtImDUvwTNOzWdwk9bQh2adC YaLE2ALrEJIJOoQTK/37XzOFvT61eJa5ngA0YCqqav6kUw/zp9STcuIMCrO4Yb4N y42Wh595HBdzEWlog= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=xHxBHz pp9Xw2S5ni51j5C3rEnzqcTQ39vU1Cb/76gzg=; b=L2PF6L0N4kKenU868EwxT3 N4CXTx5AzKIXz8DHdeC9qnu2W4Z3Q20Lhfm833CRtxWgT9F0Ll6x5iLEtXOX5kKf X9UeAkb+fXqIXMf8O1YOEQOljfiO+nSGvIjpdlcGGmCjYhmC3ZZ0ntOUaDtkBCjp +b06/bMoTYXsOZWNRY7hxMQy4HJBoCJVTkRchxnFuXRrFe/bkcxJWzpvCXU1qTrX sZuJ0AYKrvL8Ubcskr3zjO4jGm01+rHTq7F1pFI1YrH65HeXAm7oy7ur/ShbFemT hiaC5tmlW3gtVLYvPh62kwCn0SD0RGThQ0DK9fmmo69ekizancqOTQzK23BH82WQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrudejgddtgeculddtuddrgedtkedrtddtmd cutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcu ofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukfhppe ejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhm rghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt 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 47941100B8; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 17:45:24 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jason Messer , Harini Ramakrishnan , Omar Cardona , Ranjit Menon Cc: Mattias =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F6nnblom?= , Jeff Shaw , stephen@networkplumber.org, dev@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 23:45:22 +0100 Message-ID: <7824863.MkUOD0j12R@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [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: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 22:45:27 -0000 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