Hi Julius, On 12.11.20 03:29, Julius Werner wrote: > So I think the "official" rule is basically that the minimum > requirement for host utilities is the same compiler and version that > crossgcc uses, which I think makes some amount of sense (otherwise > we'll just have to keep tracking and deploying two separate versions).
I think it's the opposite. Whenever I worked on buildgcc the goal was to not assume a minimum GCC version. In fact, not even assume GCC at all. I don't think it's hard to achieve the same for our build tools. We might want to make it easier to build them without treating warnings as errors (if we do), but otherwise I don't see any obstacle. It's just simple command line tools after all. > If you guys want to change that we can have that discussion, but Change what? Your idea about the "official" rule? > whatever we decide it's probably not going to be a very effective > decision unless someone puts in the work to really make Jenkins test > that continuously. And either way, I don't think any of this is > vboot's fault in particular (vboot uprevs are tested by Jenkins just > as much as any other patch and have to pass any compatibility tests > enforced there). I also think we should test a little more. But portability is nothing one can test exhaustively. IMHO, we should rather try to keep the code simple enough for a compiler to understand. Nico _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
