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

[Ben Magistro]

Adding Tyler

Sort of following along on the RFC: introduce atomics [1] it seems like the
decision to use 99 vs 11 here could make an impact on the approach taken in
that thread.

1) http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-February/262042.html

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 1:00 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:45:04AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote:
> >    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) [1]https://docs.seastar.io/master/md_compatibility.html
> >    2) [2]https://github.com/ansyun/dpdk-ans/releases
> >    Cheers
> >
> Thanks for the info.
> I also notice that since gcc 5, the default language version used - if none
> is explicitly specified - is gnu11 (or higher for later versions). Clang
> seems to do something similar, but not sure at what point it started
> defaulting to a standard >=c11.
>
> /Bruce
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/attachments/20230210/f382fe9a/attachment.htm>