[RFC 0/2] Eliminate zero length arrays in DPDK

[Tyler Retzlaff]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
> My answer is at the end.Sent from a smartphone. Please pardon brevity and spelling.

> I am therefore wondering if we needto have our public headers C90-compliant?/BruceWe are publicly using C11 for atomics [1]. I'm not sure if that also implies that we are requiring C11 generally. Otherwise,  I agree with your concerns about old code bases. [1]https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/03/26/dpdk-adopts-the-c11-memory-model

we aren't actually using C11 atomics. we are using gcc builtin atomics
that follow the C11 memory model for accessing atomics.

so strictly speaking we don't need to make the minimum a C11 compiler.

i suspect a lot of pushback would occur if we made C11 a minimum.  so
for atomics i would make the suggestion that we abstract atomics to
permit C11 atomics to be used when a C11 compiler with stdatomic is
available.