> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2023 11.10 > > One additional point that just became clear to me when I started > thinking > about upping our DPDK C-standard-baseline. We need to be careful what > we > are considering when we up our C baseline. We can mandate a specific > compiler minimum and C version for compiling up DPDK itself, but I > think we > should not mandate that for the end applications.
Why not? And do you consider this backwards compatibility a build time or run time requirement? > > That means that our header files, such as atomics, should not require > C99 > or C11 even if the build of DPDK itself does. More specifically, even > if we > bump DPDK minimum to C11, we should still allow apps to build using > older > compiler settings. > > Therefore, we probably need to maintain non-C11 atomics code paths in > headers beyond the point at which DPDK itself uses C11 as a code > baseline. Am I misunderstanding your suggestion here: Code can be C11, but all APIs and header files must be C89? Wouldn't that also prevent DPDK inline functions from being C11? > > /Bruce
