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) https://docs.seastar.io/master/md_compatibility.html 2) https://github.com/ansyun/dpdk-ans/releases Cheers On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:09 AM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:09:14AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote: > > Since this topic keeps coming up in other threads I'll chime in with > my > > $0.01 here. We've been using CentOS 7 for awhile (and working on > > migrating off) but have had to leverage devtoolset/llvmtoolset for > > various reasons. I remember a discussion of installing a different > > compiler coming up but don't remember which thread that was in/what > the > > outcome was. While I'd like to just brush over C7 and say there is a > > compatible compiler available so just make the change I also realize > > that making that change could be quite disruptive to existing code > > bases. > > However, the 22.11 LTS will be EOL in Nov 2024. CentOS 7 is EOL Jun > > 2024. For the 23.x series and going forward I don't think starting > > with a C11 requirement is an unreasonable ask. > > > Thanks for that input. If we drop support for Centos/RHEL 7, I think we > should be ok to pass -std=c11 for the build of DPDK. > > Have you any thoughts on the second part of the c11 move - where our > headers require c11 support and therefore may require that the end user > builds their own code using -std=c11? This latter part is the bit that > concerns me a little, as I feel it may be problematic for some with older > codebases. > > /Bruce >
