On Sat, 2021-05-15 at 09:14 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
>
> Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,
Why is that? Later compiler version
On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,
> Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/Kconfig| 2 +-
> arch/power
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:29 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for different reasons as well,
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:17 AM Christophe Leroy
wrote:
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [1]
> >
Le 04/05/2021 à 14:17, Michal Suchánek a écrit :
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek wrote:
Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly mor
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek wrote:
> >
> > Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> > ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> > answer.
>
> Can you ple
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek wrote:
>
> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> answer.
Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
a new kernel imag
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 7:31 AM Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > >
> > > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > > aware, there are embedded users forc
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:38:32AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks wrote:
> >
> > Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> > their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> > blessed version of gcc. These often lag ye
On 02/05/2021 03:41, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
+1 This will allow me to r
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks wrote:
>
> Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> gcc releases :(
In those scenarios, why do you
Le 04/05/2021 à 07:30, Alexander Dahl a écrit :
Hello Arnd,
Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl wrote:
Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
aware, there are embedded users forced to sti
Hello Arnd,
Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for diffe
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 3:17 PM Christophe Leroy
wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 PM David Laight wrote:
>
> It would be nice to be able to build current kernels (for local
> use) on the 'new' system - but gcc is already too old.
I have seen such environments too... However, for the kernel in
particular, you could install a newer GCC in the 'new' ma
On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
>
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
There are still a lot of comment references to old gc
From: Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: 03 May 2021 10:25
...
> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:32 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distributions are. We did decide
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:44 AM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > []
> > > > Perhaps 8 might be best as th
On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> actually _maintains_ such a list.
Distrowatch does. I used it for checking. But you need to che
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl wrote:
>
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)
>
> This is no show stopper
On Mon, 2021-05-03 at 09:34 +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)
In your embedded case, wh
Hei hei,
Am Sun, May 02, 2021 at 11:30:07PM +0100 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distribution
Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
GCC 5.1.
When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
to 5.1 globally. [1]
I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.
On
On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
> > > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> >
> > I have no idea wha
On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> too old to worry about
On 02/05/2021 23.32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
On
On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
>
> I have no idea what you mean?
? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h
On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 1:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
> they do not already have. Five years might be fine, but three years is
> not.
So this should be our main issue - not how old a compiler is, but how
our compiler
On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
>
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segh
On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Everyone should always use an as new release as
On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
>
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
>
> I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powe
On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old. Do you
really want to require bleeding edge tools?
Segher
On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >
> > More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> > be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
>
> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute h
Le 01/05/2021 à 17:52, Miguel Ojeda a écrit :
On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
+1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
include/linux
On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>
> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
+1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.
Reviewed-by: Miguel Oje
36 matches
Mail list logo
