Hi Jason, We need to get facts in order to do a good decision. Please, let's give detailed feedback for each option.
03/01/2019 18:10, Jason Messer: > +Jeffrey, Manasi > > We will get the most traction from the Windows developer community > if we use msvc. The only thing preventing that last time was > GNU extensions used in DPDK source which were not ISO C standards > compliant. I think the main issue is that MSVC is not C99 compliant. > We were also experimenting with Clang/LLVM running natively on Windows > host but ran into a bunch of issues (maybe others made further progress?). Chromium is built with clang on Windows, so I wonder what prevents us to use it? > GCC using Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) would be an interesting > option and could be a secondary option for MSVC for Windows developers. I thought GCC on WSL would build a Linux binary? Can we build a Windows native binary with it? What about mingw-w64? Is there any drawback? > From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > What about Gcc under the WSL thing (ie Linux emulation in Windows). > > Much better than Cygwin type stuff. > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > Hi, > > > > > > We need to gather inputs about the pros/cons of the C compilers > > > available for Windows. > > > > > > Interesting criterias could be: > > > - ease of use > > > - availability > > > - standards compliance > > > - performance > > > > > > When the comparison will be complete, we should publish it in the doc/ > > > directory, while porting DPDK to Windows. > > > > > > I start with few data: > > > > > > * gcc|clang on cygwin > > > > > > - not native > > > > > > * gcc/mingw > > > > > > * gcc/mingw-w64 > > > > > > * clang/mingw-w64 > > > > > > * clang --target=x86_64-windows-msvc > > > > > > * icc > > > > > > - not freely available > > > > > > * msvc > > > > > > - native > > > - specific command line > > > - not C99
