On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 20:44 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort: > > > Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is > > going to affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if > > it's the right approach. We introduced GCC 4.8 in wheezy, named > > gcc-mozilla (a bad name I know) which didn't build these libraries, > > so it didn't affect the rest of the archive, which was still > > building with GCC 4.6 or 4.7 (depending on the architecture). > > The GCC system libraries should be backwards compatible (and we test > that extensively with each new Debian release), however I agree that > this type of change is not what wheezy users expect at this point. > > Red Hat has published retpoline-enabled GCC versions based off GCC 4.4 > and 4.8, maybe these would help? It *should* be safe to add the > subset of the applicable GCC 4.8 to gcc-mozilla (that is, skip the > aarch64 bits and everything else which is not part of GCC 4.8 > upstream). I don't think there are any conflicts with the stack clash > protection feature in Red Hat's GCC 4.8. > > The other problem is that rebasing the kernel compiler typically > requires extensive kernel QE because some areas of the kernel really > stretch what can be done in C.
I've already looked through the Linux commit log for fixes mentioning
gcc 4.{7,8,9}, and these are included in 3.2.101.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered
an expert.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
