On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:27:25AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 10:13:44AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > That actually sounds like we could just > > > > > > (a) make gcc 4.5 be the minimum required version > > > > > > (b) actually error out if we find a bad compiler > > > > So the unofficial plan was to enforce asm-goto and -fentry support by > > hard failure to build, which would get us at gcc-4.6 and then remove all > > Has gcc-4.6 a (planned) retpoline backport? IIRC the cutoff for that was > gcc 4.9
Official GCC will not do retpoline before 4.9 AFAIK. But if someone were to want to build a RETPOLINE=n kernel I don't see why we should mandate retpoline. Also, distro's have backported retpoline much further back already.