Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

2023-02-23 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 11:35:55AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > Traditionally, DPDK has never specified a minimum C standard used either > > in DPDK builds or for applications using DPDK. Following discussion > > on-list about

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

2023-02-22 Thread Tyler Retzlaff
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 11:35:55AM +, Bruce Richardson wrote: > Traditionally, DPDK has never specified a minimum C standard used either > in DPDK builds or for applications using DPDK. Following discussion > on-list about C standards, this RFC attempts to start the process of > codifying what

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

2023-02-10 Thread Tyler Retzlaff
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 09:52:06AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote: > Adding Tyler > > Sort of following along on the RFC: introduce atomics [1] it seems like the > decision to use 99 vs 11 here could make an impact on the approach taken in > that thread. hey Ben thanks for keeping an eye across thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

2023-02-10 Thread Ben Magistro
Adding Tyler Sort of following along on the RFC: introduce atomics [1] it seems like the decision to use 99 vs 11 here could make an impact on the approach taken in that thread. 1) http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-February/262042.html On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 1:00 PM Bruce Richardson wrote

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

2023-02-03 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:45:04AM -0500, Ben Magistro wrote: >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 con

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

2023-02-03 Thread Ben Magistro
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

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

2023-02-03 Thread Bruce Richardson
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 reas

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

2023-02-03 Thread Ben Magistro
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'

[RFC PATCH 0/1] Specify C-standard requirement for DPDK builds

2023-01-12 Thread Bruce Richardson
Traditionally, DPDK has never specified a minimum C standard used either in DPDK builds or for applications using DPDK. Following discussion on-list about C standards, this RFC attempts to start the process of codifying what our standards expectations are. No code changes are made by this RFC, inst