Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On 16/04/17 20:52, Kees Cook wrote: Was there a conclusion to this discussion? I didn't see anything definitive in the thread... Notes below... On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: [Fixed linux-arm-kernel mailing list address, sorry for the duplicate, I'm not

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On 16/04/17 20:52, Kees Cook wrote: Was there a conclusion to this discussion? I didn't see anything definitive in the thread... Notes below... On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: [Fixed linux-arm-kernel mailing list address, sorry for the duplicate, I'm not reposting all

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> How about this approach then: >> >> - To keep it simple, we update the README.rst to say that a minimum >> gcc-4.3 is required, while recommending

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> How about this approach then: >> >> - To keep it simple, we update the README.rst to say that a minimum >> gcc-4.3 is required, while recommending gcc-4.9 for all architectures >> -

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > How about this approach then: > > - To keep it simple, we update the README.rst to say that a minimum > gcc-4.3 is required, while recommending gcc-4.9 for all architectures > - Support for gcc-4.0 and earlier gets removed

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > How about this approach then: > > - To keep it simple, we update the README.rst to say that a minimum > gcc-4.3 is required, while recommending gcc-4.9 for all architectures > - Support for gcc-4.0 and earlier gets removed from

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> >> So it still fails, but only because of one compiler error that I can avoid by >> disabling that driver, and you probably use a slightly patched compiler >> version

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> >> So it still fails, but only because of one compiler error that I can avoid by >> disabling that driver, and you probably use a slightly patched compiler >> version that doesn't have this

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I later tried all mips defconfigs with linux-4.3 and they all failed > with gcc-4.1.3 > but built fine with gcc-4.9. I've now tried decstation_defconfig in 4.8-rc11, > and this is what I see for gcc-4.1.3 > > make O=build/mips/decstation_defconfig/

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I later tried all mips defconfigs with linux-4.3 and they all failed > with gcc-4.1.3 > but built fine with gcc-4.9. I've now tried decstation_defconfig in 4.8-rc11, > and this is what I see for gcc-4.1.3 > > make O=build/mips/decstation_defconfig/

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki > wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> > If there's no real good reason (brokenness) to deprecate gcc-4.1, I would >>> >

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki > wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> > If there's no real good reason (brokenness) to deprecate gcc-4.1, I would >>> > not >>> > do it.I guess most people

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > If there's no real good reason (brokenness) to deprecate gcc-4.1, I would >> > not >> > do it.I guess most people using old compilers know what they're doing. >> >>

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > If there's no real good reason (brokenness) to deprecate gcc-4.1, I would >> > not >> > do it.I guess most people using old compilers know what they're doing. >> >> What I'm trying to

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > If there's no real good reason (brokenness) to deprecate gcc-4.1, I would > > not > > do it.I guess most people using old compilers know what they're doing. > > What I'm trying to find out first is whether "people regularly using 10+ > year old

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > If there's no real good reason (brokenness) to deprecate gcc-4.1, I would > > not > > do it.I guess most people using old compilers know what they're doing. > > What I'm trying to find out first is whether "people regularly using 10+ > year old

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> My main motivation for keep on using gcc-4.1 is

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven > wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> Based on what I found so far, gcc-4 can be pretty

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven > wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> Based on what I found so far, gcc-4 can be pretty much ruled out from >>> being the minimum version based

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> Based on what I found so far, gcc-4 can be pretty much ruled out from >> being the minimum version based on the number of

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> Based on what I found so far, gcc-4 can be pretty much ruled out from >> being the minimum version based on the number of failures I got. >> It's much better than

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Based on what I found so far, gcc-4 can be pretty much ruled out from > being the minimum version based on the number of failures I got. > It's much better than 3.4 but much worse than 4.1 or 4.2 which seem > fixable

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Based on what I found so far, gcc-4 can be pretty much ruled out from > being the minimum version based on the number of failures I got. > It's much better than 3.4 but much worse than 4.1 or 4.2 which seem > fixable on MIPS and

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > The linux-4.2 x86 defconfig could still be built with gcc-4.0, but >> > later kernels have several minor problems with that, and >> > require at least gcc-4.3. >> > >> >

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > The linux-4.2 x86 defconfig could still be built with gcc-4.0, but >> > later kernels have several minor problems with that, and >> > require at least gcc-4.3. >> > >> > If we are ok with this

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Kees Cook wrote: > > The linux-4.2 x86 defconfig could still be built with gcc-4.0, but > > later kernels have several minor problems with that, and > > require at least gcc-4.3. > > > > If we are ok with this status quo, we could simply declare gcc-4.3 > > the absolute

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Kees Cook wrote: > > The linux-4.2 x86 defconfig could still be built with gcc-4.0, but > > later kernels have several minor problems with that, and > > require at least gcc-4.3. > > > > If we are ok with this status quo, we could simply declare gcc-4.3 > > the absolute

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > support that, we probably want the first 10 quirks in

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still support that, we probably want the first 10 quirks in this series,

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still support that, we probably want the first 10 quirks in this series, while gcc-4.6 (released in 2011)

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > Was there a conclusion to this discussion? I didn't see anything > definitive in the thread... No definite answer, no. My personal view now is that we should probably merge the patches I sent, to help those that for one

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > Was there a conclusion to this discussion? I didn't see anything > definitive in the thread... No definite answer, no. My personal view now is that we should probably merge the patches I sent, to help those that for one reason or another use

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Was there a conclusion to this discussion? I didn't see anything definitive in the thread... Notes below... On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > [Fixed linux-arm-kernel mailing list address, sorry for the duplicate, > I'm not reposting all the ugly patches

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Was there a conclusion to this discussion? I didn't see anything definitive in the thread... Notes below... On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > [Fixed linux-arm-kernel mailing list address, sorry for the duplicate, > I'm not reposting all the ugly patches though, unless

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:29:50PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > A new version is understandable. But why is an old version required? > One thing is an enterprise distro that is "current" or "supported" and still > stuck with gcc 4.1 because that is the version they decided to include

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:29:50PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > A new version is understandable. But why is an old version required? > One thing is an enterprise distro that is "current" or "supported" and still > stuck with gcc 4.1 because that is the version they decided to include

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:00:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2016 6:00:43 PM CET Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2016-12-16 11:56:21 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > > > support that, we

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:00:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2016 6:00:43 PM CET Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2016-12-16 11:56:21 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > > > support that, we

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On 2016-12-16 23:00:27 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2016 6:00:43 PM CET Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2016-12-16 11:56:21 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > > > support that, we probably

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On 2016-12-16 23:00:27 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2016 6:00:43 PM CET Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2016-12-16 11:56:21 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > > > support that, we probably

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Friday, December 16, 2016 6:00:43 PM CET Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-12-16 11:56:21 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > > support that, we probably want the first 10 quirks in this series, > > while gcc-4.6

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Friday, December 16, 2016 6:00:43 PM CET Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-12-16 11:56:21 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > > support that, we probably want the first 10 quirks in this series, > > while gcc-4.6

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2016 4:54:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > Specifically on ARM, going further makes things rather useless

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2016 4:54:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > Specifically on ARM, going further makes things rather useless especially >> > for build testing:

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Friday, December 16, 2016 4:54:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Specifically on ARM, going further makes things rather useless especially > > for build testing: with gcc-4.2, we lose support for ARMv7,

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On Friday, December 16, 2016 4:54:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Specifically on ARM, going further makes things rather useless especially > > for build testing: with gcc-4.2, we lose support for ARMv7, EABI, and > >

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On 2016-12-16 11:56:21 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > support that, we probably want the first 10 quirks in this series, > while gcc-4.6 (released in 2011) requires none of them. It this min gcc thingy ARM only? The current

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

On 2016-12-16 11:56:21 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > support that, we probably want the first 10 quirks in this series, > while gcc-4.6 (released in 2011) requires none of them. It this min gcc thingy ARM only? The current

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Specifically on ARM, going further makes things rather useless especially > for build testing: with gcc-4.2, we lose support for ARMv7, EABI, and > effectively ARMv6 (as it relies on EABI for building reliably).

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

Hi Arnd, On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Specifically on ARM, going further makes things rather useless especially > for build testing: with gcc-4.2, we lose support for ARMv7, EABI, and > effectively ARMv6 (as it relies on EABI for building reliably). Also, > the number

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

[Fixed linux-arm-kernel mailing list address, sorry for the duplicate, I'm not reposting all the ugly patches though, unless someone really wants them, https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/16/174 has a copy] On Friday, December 16, 2016 11:56:21 AM CET Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I had some fun doing build

Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

[Fixed linux-arm-kernel mailing list address, sorry for the duplicate, I'm not reposting all the ugly patches though, unless someone really wants them, https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/16/174 has a copy] On Friday, December 16, 2016 11:56:21 AM CET Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I had some fun doing build

[RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

I had some fun doing build testing with older gcc versions, building every release from 4.0 through 7.0 and running that on my randconfig setup to see what comes out. First of all, gcc-4.9 and higher is basically warning-free everywhere, although gcc-7 introduces some interesting new warnings (I

[RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

I had some fun doing build testing with older gcc versions, building every release from 4.0 through 7.0 and running that on my randconfig setup to see what comes out. First of all, gcc-4.9 and higher is basically warning-free everywhere, although gcc-7 introduces some interesting new warnings (I