On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:27:06PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 7/5/2016 11:44 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > > DPDK uses GNU C language extensions in most of its code base. This is fine > > for internal source files whose compilation flags are controlled by DPDK, > > however user applications that use exported "public" headers may experience > > compilation failures when enabling strict error/standard checks (-std and > > -pedantic for instance). > > Out of curiosity, is there a specific standard version that is targeted?
Considering past discussions on more or less related topics (such as [1]), I think we target at least C99 compliance for exported headers only. It can be even better if we manage to have them comply with C90 but I think it is not worth the effort, as all the compilers we support do understand C99. C11 support is not widespread enough yet. Note that even after applying this series, exported headers are not really C99 compliant. Extensions are only made clear through the use of __extension__ keywords (and a few minor changes) that non-compliant statements are perfectly normal and compilers should not worry about them when compiling user applications with stricter flags than usual (-pedantic). Remember that the rest of DPDK can use whatever internally without explicit keywords as long as it works with the default set of options and all supported compiler versions for targetted platforms. This series does not change anything in this regard. Also C++ compat is on currently only on a best effort basis. Works as long as -pedantic is not specified, that is a task for later if we really want full compliance. In short: - Exported headers: C99, C++11 (best effort) - Internally: GNU C99/C11, no C++ (but I guess it would be C++11 considering the number of extensions we'd need otherwise). [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-November/027355.html -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND
