On 5/3/2023 4:57 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 04:39:14PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 5/3/2023 4:14 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>> Add a deprecation notice informing users that we will require a C11 >>> compiler from 23.11 release onwards. This requirement was agreed by >>> technical board to enable use of newer C language features, e.g. >>> standard atomics. [1] >>> >>> [1] >>> http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/dbapr08mb58148cec3e1454e8848a938998...@dbapr08mb5814.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com/ >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> >>> --- >>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 6 ++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>> index dcc1ca1696..9a391d2c49 100644 >>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>> @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ here. >>> Deprecation Notices >>> ------------------- >>> >>> +* C Compiler: From DPDK 23.11 onwards, >>> + building DPDK will require a C compiler which supports the C11 standard, >>> or later. >>> + Please note: >>> + - C11 is supported from GCC version 5 onwards, and is the default >>> language version in that release >>> + - C11 is the default compilation mode in Clang from version 3.6 >>> + >>> * kvargs: The function ``rte_kvargs_process`` will get a new parameter >>> for returning key match count. It will ease handling of no-match case. >>> >> >> This only applies to DPDK internals, right? >> Application linked with DPDK library won't have this requirement, >> meaning DPDK public headers won't rely on C99 and C11 features. >> > No, AFAIK, that is not correct. Originally I had thought that that would be > the case - hence the special-case tests for the headers in my previous C99 > patch - but the consensus at the DPDK techboard was that we won't require > all headers to remain C89 compatible. >
Ah, thanks for clarification. The previous patch made me think we are keeping headers C89 compatible, I missed the final decision. > Originally, I was unsure about this, but now I agree with this position, on > the basis that since GCC 5, unless you have been explicitly requesting an > older standard, the compiler is using C11 rules. Therefore, everyone using > these later GCC versions is already using C11+. > Not just compiler version, application enforcing an old standard also may cause trouble. But I can see this is simpler from DPDK perspective.
