On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:10:04 +0000 Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com> wrote:
> <snip> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] test/ticketlock: use C11 atomic > > > > builtins for lcores sync > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:17:33AM -0500, Joyce Kong wrote: > > > > > Convert rte_atomic usages to C11 atomic builtins for lcores sync > > > > > in ticketlock testcases. > > > > > > > > gcc atomic builtins aren't 'C11' > > > Sorry, I did not understand this, can you elaborate? I am referring to > > > [1]. > > > > your subject line indicates the use of C11 which is a standard [1]. > > > > the patch itself uses gcc atomics builtins which are not part of C11 > > standard so > > the subject line is incorrect and misleading. > Ok, understood. How about the following? > "use gcc's C11 atomic built-ins for lcore synchronization" > > > > > [1] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards.html#9899 > > > > > > > > Not sure if these compilers are supported in DPDK. DPDK officially > > > supports > > gcc, clang (not sure on icc). > > > > dpdk may incorporate support for other compilers in the future so unless > > there is > > substantive justification for moving to non-standard/non-portable code i'm > > asking that this change not be made as it will complicate those future > > efforts. > There is some history [1] behind why we are doing this. I guess new compiler > support needs to be discussed in the future. > > [1] https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/03/26/dpdk-adopts-the-c11-memory-model/ Footnote: C++ 11 standard memory model (see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order) which is made available as builtin extensions in clang and gcc.
