[RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

[Ben Magistro]

In our case we have other libraries that we are using that have required us
to specify a minimum c++ version (14/17 most recently for one) so it
doesn't feel like a big ask/issue to us (provided things don't start
conflicting...hah; not anticipating any issue).  Our software is also used
internally so we have a fair bit of control over how fast we can adopt
changes.

This got me wondering what some other projects in the DPDK ecosystem are
saying/doing around language standards/gcc versions.  So some quick
checking of the projects I am aware of/looked at/using...
* trex: cannot find an obvious minimum gcc requirement
* tldk: we are running our own public folk with several fixes, need to find
time to solve the build sys change aspect to continue providing patches
upstream; I know I have hit some places where it was easier to say the new
minimum DPDK version is x at which point you just adopt the minimum
requirements of DPDK
* ovs: looks to be comfortable with an older gcc still
* seastar: seems to be the most aggressive with adopting language
standards/compilers I've seen [1] and are asking for gcc 9+ and cpp17+
* ans: based on release 19.02 (2019), they are on gcc >= 5.4 [2] and is the
same on the main README file

I do understand the concern, but if no one is voicing an opinion/objection
does that mean they agree with/will not be affected by the change....

1) https://docs.seastar.io/master/md_compatibility.html
2) https://github.com/ansyun/dpdk-ans/releases

Cheers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:09 AM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:09:14AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote:
> >    Since this topic keeps coming up in other threads I'll chime in with
> my
> >    $0.01 here.  We've been using CentOS 7 for awhile (and working on
> >    migrating off) but have had to leverage devtoolset/llvmtoolset for
> >    various reasons.  I remember a discussion of installing a different
> >    compiler coming up but don't remember which thread that was in/what
> the
> >    outcome was.  While I'd like to just brush over C7 and say there is a
> >    compatible compiler available so just make the change I also realize
> >    that making that change could be quite disruptive to existing code
> >    bases.
> >    However, the 22.11 LTS will be EOL in Nov 2024.  CentOS 7 is EOL Jun
> >    2024.  For the 23.x series and going forward I don't think starting
> >    with a C11 requirement is an unreasonable ask.
> >
> Thanks for that input. If we drop support for Centos/RHEL 7, I think we
> should be ok to pass -std=c11 for the build of DPDK.
>
> Have you any thoughts on the second part of the c11 move - where our
> headers require c11 support and therefore may require that the end user
> builds their own code using -std=c11? This latter part is the bit that
> concerns me a little, as I feel it may be problematic for some with older
> codebases.
>
> /Bruce
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/attachments/20230203/66b8bc28/attachment.htm>