On 5/1/2024 3:14 PM, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: > On 2024-05-01 11:10, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> On 4/30/2024 9:57 PM, Patrick Robb wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 4:13 PM Mattias Rönnblom <hof...@lysator.liu.se >>> <mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se>> wrote: >>> >>> On 2024-04-30 15:52, Patrick Robb wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:46 AM Mattias Rönnblom >>> <hof...@lysator.liu.se <mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se> >>> > <mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se <mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se>>> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > It would be great if the unit test suite (app/test/*) was >>> compiled (and >>> > run) using a C++ (C++11) compiler as well. At least, if >>> such is >>> > available. >>> > >>> > >>> > Sure, the UNH Lab can try this. >>> > >>> > >>> > With the current state of affairs, header file macros or >>> functions are >>> > not verified to be functional (or even valid) C++. >>> > >>> > "C is a subset of C++", which was never true, is becoming >>> less and >>> > less so. >>> > >>> > If all unit tests aren't valid C++, maybe one could start >>> with >>> an "opt >>> > in" model. >>> > >>> > >>> > Okay, so basically run the fast-test suite, record all that don't >>> pass, >>> > submit a bugzilla ticket stating which unit tests are not >>> valid on a >>> > certain c++ compiler, then bring CI Testing online using the >>> valid >>> > subset of fast-tests. This should work. >>> > >>> >>> Sounds good. >>> >>> Just to be clear: the above includes extending the DPDK build >>> system to >>> build the app/test/dpdk-test binary in two versions: one C and >>> one C++, >>> so that anyone can run the C++ tests locally as well. Correct? >>> >>> >>> Okay, so now I am understanding this is not yet available. When I >>> responded this morning I was figuring that c++ compiler support was >>> available and I simply wasn't aware, and that we could quite easily set >>> cc={some c++ compiler}, meson would pick it up, and we would be able to >>> build DPDK and then run unit tests in this manner in CI testing. >>> >>> I didn't mean to suggest we would submit patches extending the build >>> system to this end. That's probably a little out of scope for what we >>> try to accomplish at the Community Lab. >>> >>> But if the aforementioned build system support is added, of course we >>> are willing to add that as a build environment for unit tests and report >>> those respective results. >>> >> >> Does it have to be 'app/test/dpdk-test', why not build examples with C++? >> > > The unit tests have the ability to test DPDK, which is exactly what we > want to do here. Such testing isn't limited to "compiles yes/no", but to > detect run-time (behavioral) issues, and properly report them. > > This is especially important for cases where there is code only > exercised in C++ translation units (i.e., in #ifdef __cplusplus). >
And Bruce highlighted that compile check is already covered. Than I guess this work needs to be done in two steps, 1. Enable building dpdk-test (or all applications) with C++ in build system. And fix possible issues. 2. Enable in dpdk-test C++ build and run in CI. We need a volunteer for 1. before asking CI lab for 2.
