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 83C68A00C5; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:33:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C63C410FB; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:33:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1558C410F7 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:33:06 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1645003987; x=1676539987; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=JI7IjKjSru2ov4siwVH8+fq3sNH5uGhCBq1GtCHcVG4=; b=mOHvjtq7RQ7fKjLU2ZUO08a/PHeyJksQQvAIbm/OUqw50ij4HmF1LGwq vxLi+N6Sa2isA/DrGYEyQNFjpuR0Cx8uDuThXbt/qvmqS6EMTnTHVRz99 sE+jLJF7WEEBxk1y1jFsdgEX4sqStT42xgl2JUpyvJZal/g4eFs1FMobl tu5RPx+roc8oyjL1eThc45sF8PX3/sEsiIDYYZn/hRzRtevzHbf/dUNVw cyVeG+k34zb7PdupNcciz7UEgMxwqQpAjDr0TwD5Jbjk61jUxluXAd8c7 pnfzHe3A/5uS5PirS8Sdmcrruvm58+2xbdV9nNpjOPT4Y1GsmpRry02Zl w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10259"; a="231188555" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,373,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="231188555" Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Feb 2022 01:33:06 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,373,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="625304677" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.21.192]) by fmsmga003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Feb 2022 01:33:05 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:33:02 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Eliminate zero length arrays in DPDK Message-ID: References: <20220215230058.64760-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220215230058.64760-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> 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 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=c99 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).