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 CDEF4A00C5;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:05:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48290410FF;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:05:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com
 (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76C9410FB
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:05:10 +0100 (CET)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [RFC 0/2] Eliminate zero length arrays in DPDK
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:05:09 +0100
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D86EB0@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
In-Reply-To: <YgzEznz3PGAAPjS+@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [RFC 0/2] Eliminate zero length arrays in DPDK
Thread-Index: AdgjGDcm1SOTv5ciSSSkTnPONzmnjQAA3X4g
References: <20220215230058.64760-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <YgzEznz3PGAAPjS+@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 "Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>
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

> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2022 10.33
>=20
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 03:00:56PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Yet another case of applying Linux kernel best practices
> > to DPDK. Flexible arrays are supported by Clang, GCC and
> > Microsoft compilers (part of C99).
> >
> Do we need to start explicitly stating that DPDK uses C99 features, =
and
> adding -std=3Dc99 to our build flags? Are we also requiring that
> applications
> are compiled with c99 features to use this (I would hope that they =
are,
> but
> I'm not sure we can mandate it).

No to -std=3Dc99. It's >=3D C99 for applications; we should not prevent =
them from using a newer C standard.

Adding a note about the C standard version to the DPDK requirements =
documentation would be very nice. It only mentions a certain compiler =
version required. But I think that documenting the detailed build and =
runtime requirements (and why they are that way) is another task.