On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > My answer is at the end.Sent from a smartphone. Please pardon brevity and > spelling.
> I am therefore wondering if we needto have our public headers > C90-compliant?/BruceWe are publicly using C11 for atomics [1]. I'm not sure > if that also implies that we are requiring C11 generally. Otherwise, I agree > with your concerns about old code bases. > [1]https://www.dpdk.org/blog/2021/03/26/dpdk-adopts-the-c11-memory-model we aren't actually using C11 atomics. we are using gcc builtin atomics that follow the C11 memory model for accessing atomics. so strictly speaking we don't need to make the minimum a C11 compiler. i suspect a lot of pushback would occur if we made C11 a minimum. so for atomics i would make the suggestion that we abstract atomics to permit C11 atomics to be used when a C11 compiler with stdatomic is available.
