+ Red Hat tech board members > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2025 20.21 > > On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:06:58 +0100 > Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> wrote: > > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 March 2025 17.22 > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 05:22:15PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > When doing a build for a target that already has the instruction > sets > > > > for AVX2/AVX512 enabled, skip emitting the AVX compiler flags, or > the > > > > skylake-avx512 '-march' flags, as they are unnecessary. Instead, > when > > > > the default flags produce the desired output, just use them > > > unmodified. > > > > > > > > Depends-on: series-34915 ("remove component-specific logic for > AVX > > > builds") > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > This patchset depends on the previous AVX rework. However, > sending it > > > > separately as a new RFC because it effectively increases the > minimum > > > > compiler versions needed for x86 builds - from GCC 5 to 6, and > > > > Clang 3.6 to 3.9. > > > > > > > > For now, I've just documented that as an additional note in the > GSG > > > that > > > > these versions are recommended, but it would be simpler if we > could > > > just > > > > set them as the required minimum baseline (at least in the docs). > > > > > > > > Feedback on these compiler version requirements welcome. > > > > > > > > > > +techboard > > > > > > Ping for a little bit of feedback for this. Are we ok to bump the > > > minimum > > > compiler versions as described above, or will I continue with the > > > approach > > > in this RFC of keeping the minimum and just recommending the higher > > > versions for x86 platforms? > > > > > > For reference GCC 6.1 was released April 2016[1], and, Clang 3.9 > was > > > released Sept 2016[2] > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/ > > > [2] https://releases.llvm.org/ > > > > Considering GCC versions shipped with RHEL [3]... > > We kind of support RHEL 7, but we already require a newer compiler > (GCC 5) than shipped with RHEL 7 (GCC 4.8). > > RHEL 8 ships with GCC 8, which was released in May 2018 [4]. Maybe we > can jump to GCC 8? > > > > BTW, we should also apply the same principle I argued [5] should > apply for upgrading the Kernel requirements: There should be a need for > specific feature or similar - which there is with your patch - and the > details should be mentioned in the release notes. > > > > [3]: https://access.redhat.com/solutions/19458 > > [4]: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/ > > [5]: > https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/CAMEVEZutf4sJ=EQFONw_bJW0tGTWqTbF_Tk_y38qzBL > ccco...@mail.gmail.com/T/#me7c8f1dbe4331ccf232d43512d6ddb51458c568a > > > > RHEL 7 reached end of life on June 30, 2024. > DPDK need no longer support it on future versions.
CentOS 7 reached EOL June 2024, yes. RHEL 7 reached End of Maintenance June 2024, but RHEL 7 Extended Life Cycle Support is available until June 2028 [6]. Although RHEL 7 not fully EOL, I would consider "End Of Maintenance" sufficiently dead for future DPDK versions not needing to support it. If you are running a production system on a distro that's on Extended Life Cycle Support, you shouldn't deploy a new DPDK version - and if you do anyway, it's your own problem, not the DPDK community's problem. @Aaron, @Kevin, @Maxime - speak up if you disagree! [6]: https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux/rhel-7-end-of-maintenance
