Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a > > current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. > > What bug exactly? http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23237 MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. What bug exactly? http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23237 MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Fri, 2005-08-12 09:40:18 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo > > cpu : VAX > > cpu type: KA43 > > cpu sid : 0x0b06 > > cpu sidex : 0x04010002 > > page size : 4096 > > BogoMIPS: 10.08 > > -sh-3.00# cat version > > Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.0 20050803 > > (experimental)) #2 Wed Aug 3 23:42:11 CEST 2005 > > Any change we will see this code in mainline? That's the plan. We haven't publically talked about it yet, but we'd probably like to present the code for review once we - have enough hardware supported. At least local SCSI drivers for the most common machines should be available, as well as network drivers. That's not yet the case. - have userspace working again. Currently, a very old gcc is used. I'm working on uClibc (and thereafter GNU libc) in conjunction with gcc-HEAD as time allows. So yes, we want to show off the code, but we don't want to do that publically and right now. There are still to many places where the code needs some tidy-up (and be it whitespace and comment fixes), but everybody is welcome to peek at our CVS repo (http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=2626) or to join the mailing list (at http://www.pergamentum.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-vax). So if *you* are looking for some beginner's task to start with kernel development, here you go! Oh, and SMP fun will hopefully start soon. A machine is on the way and I hope it'll survive shipping :-) VAX is also an interesting platform because it's another platform offering TurboChannel slots. So if you're interested in those old Alphas or DECstations, VAX is for you, too. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo > > cpu : VAX > > cpu type: KA43 > > cpu sid : 0x0b06 > > cpu sidex : 0x04010002 > > page size : 4096 > > BogoMIPS: 10.08 > > -sh-3.00# cat version > > Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.0 20050803 > > (experimental)) #2 Wed Aug 3 23:42:11 CEST 2005 > > Any change we will see this code in mainline? > Or do you wait for a 25th anniversary of your hardware, or something like > that? > ;-) I guess the 25th anniversary has already happened -- there was even a nice history of DEC computing published at that time as it coincided with the 50th anniversary of the company itself. That's for VAX in general, rather than a specific implementation, though. Anyway I second the question, although I have a bit more interest in this area these days and I may push the merge myslef if nobody else bothers. ;-) Maciej - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo
> cpu : VAX
> cpu type: KA43
> cpu sid : 0x0b06
> cpu sidex : 0x04010002
> page size : 4096
> BogoMIPS: 10.08
> -sh-3.00# cat version
> Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.0 20050803
> (experimental)) #2 Wed Aug 3 23:42:11 CEST 2005
Any change we will see this code in mainline?
Or do you wait for a 25th anniversary of your hardware, or something like that?
;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert (supporter of Linux
on old systems)
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
-sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo
cpu : VAX
cpu type: KA43
cpu sid : 0x0b06
cpu sidex : 0x04010002
page size : 4096
BogoMIPS: 10.08
-sh-3.00# cat version
Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.0 20050803
(experimental)) #2 Wed Aug 3 23:42:11 CEST 2005
Any change we will see this code in mainline?
Or do you wait for a 25th anniversary of your hardware, or something like that?
;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert (supporter of Linux
on old systems)
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo cpu : VAX cpu type: KA43 cpu sid : 0x0b06 cpu sidex : 0x04010002 page size : 4096 BogoMIPS: 10.08 -sh-3.00# cat version Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.0 20050803 (experimental)) #2 Wed Aug 3 23:42:11 CEST 2005 Any change we will see this code in mainline? Or do you wait for a 25th anniversary of your hardware, or something like that? ;-) I guess the 25th anniversary has already happened -- there was even a nice history of DEC computing published at that time as it coincided with the 50th anniversary of the company itself. That's for VAX in general, rather than a specific implementation, though. Anyway I second the question, although I have a bit more interest in this area these days and I may push the merge myslef if nobody else bothers. ;-) Maciej - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Fri, 2005-08-12 09:40:18 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo cpu : VAX cpu type: KA43 cpu sid : 0x0b06 cpu sidex : 0x04010002 page size : 4096 BogoMIPS: 10.08 -sh-3.00# cat version Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.0 20050803 (experimental)) #2 Wed Aug 3 23:42:11 CEST 2005 Any change we will see this code in mainline? That's the plan. We haven't publically talked about it yet, but we'd probably like to present the code for review once we - have enough hardware supported. At least local SCSI drivers for the most common machines should be available, as well as network drivers. That's not yet the case. - have userspace working again. Currently, a very old gcc is used. I'm working on uClibc (and thereafter GNU libc) in conjunction with gcc-HEAD as time allows. So yes, we want to show off the code, but we don't want to do that publically and right now. There are still to many places where the code needs some tidy-up (and be it whitespace and comment fixes), but everybody is welcome to peek at our CVS repo (http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=2626) or to join the mailing list (at http://www.pergamentum.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-vax). So if *you* are looking for some beginner's task to start with kernel development, here you go! Oh, and SMP fun will hopefully start soon. A machine is on the way and I hope it'll survive shipping :-) VAX is also an interesting platform because it's another platform offering TurboChannel slots. So if you're interested in those old Alphas or DECstations, VAX is for you, too. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
David S. Miller wrote: From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200 - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might not be detected for a longer amount of time Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest way to get a kernel build done and that's important for many people. And with 4.0 being a scary regression in the compile time performance area compared to 3.4, this becomes even more important to keep around. I don't mean to offend anyone, but it seems that the gcc project, at least WRT x86, has lost its way a bit. The compiler is getting slower, and the generated code is not getting correspondingly faster. Or smaller. I'm not sure about more correct... Keeping 2.95 might not be a bad idea. -- -bill davidsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
David S. Miller wrote: From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200 - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might not be detected for a longer amount of time Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest way to get a kernel build done and that's important for many people. And with 4.0 being a scary regression in the compile time performance area compared to 3.4, this becomes even more important to keep around. I don't mean to offend anyone, but it seems that the gcc project, at least WRT x86, has lost its way a bit. The compiler is getting slower, and the generated code is not getting correspondingly faster. Or smaller. I'm not sure about more correct... Keeping 2.95 might not be a bad idea. -- -bill davidsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer -me - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Monday 01 August 2005 01:36, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200 > > > - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely > > used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might > > not be detected for a longer amount of time > > Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest > way to get a kernel build done and that's important for > many people. > > And with 4.0 being a scary regression in the compile time > performance area compared to 3.4, this becomes even more > important to keep around. This is a rather strange form of "progress", especially since in my experience newer gcc's do not show significant reductions in code size... -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Monday 01 August 2005 01:36, David S. Miller wrote: From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200 - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might not be detected for a longer amount of time Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest way to get a kernel build done and that's important for many people. And with 4.0 being a scary regression in the compile time performance area compared to 3.4, this becomes even more important to keep around. This is a rather strange form of progress, especially since in my experience newer gcc's do not show significant reductions in code size... -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Fri, 2005-08-05 23:30:04 +0200, Martin Drab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > init/main.c:212: error: __setup_str_quiet_kernel causes a section type > > conflict > > init/main.c:220: error: __setup_str_loglevel causes a section type conflict > > init/main.c:298: error: __setup_str_init_setup causes a section type > > conflict > > init/main.c:543: error: __setup_str_initcall_debug_setup causes a section > > type conflict > > make[1]: *** [init/main.o] Error 1 > > make: *** [init] Error 2 > > I guess kernel may not yet be ready to be compiled by the latest CVS GCC > 4.1.x (currently HEAD). But it should (at least works for me) do the > latest CVS GCC 4.0.x. As I worte previously, I now again do regular compile runs with gcc-HEAD for the VAX port and it works. ...but only, if -fno-unit-at-a-time is supplied. So I actually suspect two bugs: one in the kernel's sources (missing "const" or rw/ro attributes) and -fno-unit-at-a-time disables some gcc-internal tests that should have fired. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > >... > > > Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We > > > had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug > > > in kernel's sources. > > > > > > I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a > > > current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. > > > > What bug exactly? > > -fno-unit-at-a-time grounded: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ grep fno-unit-at > arch/i386/Makefile > # CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-unit-at-a-time) > > For presenting it, I built a gcc right from CVS: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ i486-linux-gcc -v > Using built-in specs. > Target: i486-linux > Configured with: > /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/src/gcc/configure > --disable-multilib --with-newlib --disable-nls --enable-threads=no > --disable-threads --enable-symvers=gnu --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-shared > --target=i486-linux > --prefix=/home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/install/usr > --enable-languages=c > Thread model: single > gcc version 4.1.0 20050802 (experimental) > > ...and here you can see it explode even on i386: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ make CC=i486-linux-gcc > V=1 bzImage > [...] > CHK include/asm-i386/asm_offsets.h > make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=init > i486-linux-gcc -Wp,-MD,init/.main.o.d -nostdinc -isystem > /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/install/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux/4.1.0/include > -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs > -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -ffreestanding -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer > -pipe -msoft-float -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -mtune=pentium4 > -Iinclude/asm-i386/mach-default -Wdeclaration-after-statement > -Wno-pointer-sign-DKBUILD_BASENAME=main -DKBUILD_MODNAME=main -c -o > init/main.o init/main.c > init/main.c:415: error: tmp_cmdline causes a section type conflict > init/main.c:414: error: done causes a section type conflict > init/main.c:536: error: initcall_debug causes a section type conflict > include/asm/bugs.h:35: error: __setup_str_no_halt causes a section type > conflict > include/asm/bugs.h:43: error: __setup_str_mca_pentium causes a section type > conflict > include/asm/bugs.h:52: error: __setup_str_no_387 causes a section type > conflict > init/main.c:146: error: __setup_str_nosmp causes a section type conflict > init/main.c:154: error: __setup_str_maxcpus causes a section type conflict > init/main.c:211: error: __setup_str_debug_kernel causes a section type > conflict > init/main.c:212: error: __setup_str_quiet_kernel causes a section type > conflict > init/main.c:220: error: __setup_str_loglevel causes a section type conflict > init/main.c:298: error: __setup_str_init_setup causes a section type conflict > init/main.c:543: error: __setup_str_initcall_debug_setup causes a section > type conflict > make[1]: *** [init/main.o] Error 1 > make: *** [init] Error 2 I guess kernel may not yet be ready to be compiled by the latest CVS GCC 4.1.x (currently HEAD). But it should (at least works for me) do the latest CVS GCC 4.0.x. Martin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > >... > > Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We > > had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug > > in kernel's sources. > > > > I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a > > current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. > > What bug exactly? -fno-unit-at-a-time grounded: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ grep fno-unit-at arch/i386/Makefile # CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-unit-at-a-time) For presenting it, I built a gcc right from CVS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ i486-linux-gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: i486-linux Configured with: /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/src/gcc/configure --disable-multilib --with-newlib --disable-nls --enable-threads=no --disable-threads --enable-symvers=gnu --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-shared --target=i486-linux --prefix=/home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/install/usr --enable-languages=c Thread model: single gcc version 4.1.0 20050802 (experimental) ...and here you can see it explode even on i386: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ make CC=i486-linux-gcc V=1 bzImage [...] CHK include/asm-i386/asm_offsets.h make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=init i486-linux-gcc -Wp,-MD,init/.main.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/install/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux/4.1.0/include -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -ffreestanding -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -msoft-float -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -mtune=pentium4 -Iinclude/asm-i386/mach-default -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-pointer-sign -DKBUILD_BASENAME=main -DKBUILD_MODNAME=main -c -o init/main.o init/main.c init/main.c:415: error: tmp_cmdline causes a section type conflict init/main.c:414: error: done causes a section type conflict init/main.c:536: error: initcall_debug causes a section type conflict include/asm/bugs.h:35: error: __setup_str_no_halt causes a section type conflict include/asm/bugs.h:43: error: __setup_str_mca_pentium causes a section type conflict include/asm/bugs.h:52: error: __setup_str_no_387 causes a section type conflict init/main.c:146: error: __setup_str_nosmp causes a section type conflict init/main.c:154: error: __setup_str_maxcpus causes a section type conflict init/main.c:211: error: __setup_str_debug_kernel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:212: error: __setup_str_quiet_kernel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:220: error: __setup_str_loglevel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:298: error: __setup_str_init_setup causes a section type conflict init/main.c:543: error: __setup_str_initcall_debug_setup causes a section type conflict make[1]: *** [init/main.o] Error 1 make: *** [init] Error 2 MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: ... Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug in kernel's sources. I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. What bug exactly? -fno-unit-at-a-time grounded: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ grep fno-unit-at arch/i386/Makefile # CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-unit-at-a-time) For presenting it, I built a gcc right from CVS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ i486-linux-gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: i486-linux Configured with: /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/src/gcc/configure --disable-multilib --with-newlib --disable-nls --enable-threads=no --disable-threads --enable-symvers=gnu --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-shared --target=i486-linux --prefix=/home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/install/usr --enable-languages=c Thread model: single gcc version 4.1.0 20050802 (experimental) ...and here you can see it explode even on i386: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ make CC=i486-linux-gcc V=1 bzImage [...] CHK include/asm-i386/asm_offsets.h make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=init i486-linux-gcc -Wp,-MD,init/.main.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/install/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux/4.1.0/include -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -ffreestanding -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -msoft-float -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -mtune=pentium4 -Iinclude/asm-i386/mach-default -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-pointer-sign -DKBUILD_BASENAME=main -DKBUILD_MODNAME=main -c -o init/main.o init/main.c init/main.c:415: error: tmp_cmdline causes a section type conflict init/main.c:414: error: done causes a section type conflict init/main.c:536: error: initcall_debug causes a section type conflict include/asm/bugs.h:35: error: __setup_str_no_halt causes a section type conflict include/asm/bugs.h:43: error: __setup_str_mca_pentium causes a section type conflict include/asm/bugs.h:52: error: __setup_str_no_387 causes a section type conflict init/main.c:146: error: __setup_str_nosmp causes a section type conflict init/main.c:154: error: __setup_str_maxcpus causes a section type conflict init/main.c:211: error: __setup_str_debug_kernel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:212: error: __setup_str_quiet_kernel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:220: error: __setup_str_loglevel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:298: error: __setup_str_init_setup causes a section type conflict init/main.c:543: error: __setup_str_initcall_debug_setup causes a section type conflict make[1]: *** [init/main.o] Error 1 make: *** [init] Error 2 MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: ... Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug in kernel's sources. I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. What bug exactly? -fno-unit-at-a-time grounded: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ grep fno-unit-at arch/i386/Makefile # CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-unit-at-a-time) For presenting it, I built a gcc right from CVS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ i486-linux-gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: i486-linux Configured with: /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/src/gcc/configure --disable-multilib --with-newlib --disable-nls --enable-threads=no --disable-threads --enable-symvers=gnu --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-shared --target=i486-linux --prefix=/home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/install/usr --enable-languages=c Thread model: single gcc version 4.1.0 20050802 (experimental) ...and here you can see it explode even on i386: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test_gcc/linux-2.6.13-rc5-git3$ make CC=i486-linux-gcc V=1 bzImage [...] CHK include/asm-i386/asm_offsets.h make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=init i486-linux-gcc -Wp,-MD,init/.main.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-192552-i486-linux/install/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux/4.1.0/include -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -ffreestanding -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -msoft-float -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -mtune=pentium4 -Iinclude/asm-i386/mach-default -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-pointer-sign-DKBUILD_BASENAME=main -DKBUILD_MODNAME=main -c -o init/main.o init/main.c init/main.c:415: error: tmp_cmdline causes a section type conflict init/main.c:414: error: done causes a section type conflict init/main.c:536: error: initcall_debug causes a section type conflict include/asm/bugs.h:35: error: __setup_str_no_halt causes a section type conflict include/asm/bugs.h:43: error: __setup_str_mca_pentium causes a section type conflict include/asm/bugs.h:52: error: __setup_str_no_387 causes a section type conflict init/main.c:146: error: __setup_str_nosmp causes a section type conflict init/main.c:154: error: __setup_str_maxcpus causes a section type conflict init/main.c:211: error: __setup_str_debug_kernel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:212: error: __setup_str_quiet_kernel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:220: error: __setup_str_loglevel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:298: error: __setup_str_init_setup causes a section type conflict init/main.c:543: error: __setup_str_initcall_debug_setup causes a section type conflict make[1]: *** [init/main.o] Error 1 make: *** [init] Error 2 I guess kernel may not yet be ready to be compiled by the latest CVS GCC 4.1.x (currently HEAD). But it should (at least works for me) do the latest CVS GCC 4.0.x. Martin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Fri, 2005-08-05 23:30:04 +0200, Martin Drab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: init/main.c:212: error: __setup_str_quiet_kernel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:220: error: __setup_str_loglevel causes a section type conflict init/main.c:298: error: __setup_str_init_setup causes a section type conflict init/main.c:543: error: __setup_str_initcall_debug_setup causes a section type conflict make[1]: *** [init/main.o] Error 1 make: *** [init] Error 2 I guess kernel may not yet be ready to be compiled by the latest CVS GCC 4.1.x (currently HEAD). But it should (at least works for me) do the latest CVS GCC 4.0.x. As I worte previously, I now again do regular compile runs with gcc-HEAD for the VAX port and it works. ...but only, if -fno-unit-at-a-time is supplied. So I actually suspect two bugs: one in the kernel's sources (missing const or rw/ro attributes) and -fno-unit-at-a-time disables some gcc-internal tests that should have fired. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: >... > Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We > had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug > in kernel's sources. > > I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a > current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. What bug exactly? I'm sometimes using kernels compiled with gcc 4.0 and without -fno-unit-at-a-time and except for the kernel image being smaller I haven't noticed any difference. Besides this, all architectures except i386 and um are not disabling unit-at-a-time. There are a few parts of the kernel that might still have stack problems with unit-at-a-time, but I assume that's not what you are talking about? > MfG, JBG >... cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Thu, 2005-08-04 11:34:27 +1000, Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/1/05, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 . > > > > The advantages are: > > - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] > > allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds > > - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely > > used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might > > not be detected for a longer amount of time > > > > > > Another disadvantage is you'll really piss of the VAX developers (all > 3 of us!!!, well me not so much anymore...) > > I think there is a gcc 4.x compiler nearly capable of building a > kernel for the VAX... -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo cpu : VAX cpu type: KA43 cpu sid : 0x0b06 cpu sidex : 0x04010002 page size : 4096 BogoMIPS: 10.08 -sh-3.00# cat version Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.0 20050803 (experimental)) #2 Wed Aug 3 23:42:11 CEST 2005 Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug in kernel's sources. I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. MfG, JBG PS: Yes, we lie about page size. -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Thu, 2005-08-04 11:34:27 +1000, Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/1/05, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 . The advantages are: - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might not be detected for a longer amount of time Another disadvantage is you'll really piss of the VAX developers (all 3 of us!!!, well me not so much anymore...) I think there is a gcc 4.x compiler nearly capable of building a kernel for the VAX... -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo cpu : VAX cpu type: KA43 cpu sid : 0x0b06 cpu sidex : 0x04010002 page size : 4096 BogoMIPS: 10.08 -sh-3.00# cat version Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.0 20050803 (experimental)) #2 Wed Aug 3 23:42:11 CEST 2005 Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug in kernel's sources. I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. MfG, JBG PS: Yes, we lie about page size. -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: ... Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug in kernel's sources. I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too. What bug exactly? I'm sometimes using kernels compiled with gcc 4.0 and without -fno-unit-at-a-time and except for the kernel image being smaller I haven't noticed any difference. Besides this, all architectures except i386 and um are not disabling unit-at-a-time. There are a few parts of the kernel that might still have stack problems with unit-at-a-time, but I assume that's not what you are talking about? MfG, JBG ... cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On 8/1/05, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 . > > The advantages are: > - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] > allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds > - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely > used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might > not be detected for a longer amount of time > > Another disadvantage is you'll really piss of the VAX developers (all 3 of us!!!, well me not so much anymore...) I think there is a gcc 4.x compiler nearly capable of building a kernel for the VAX... Dave. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gustavo Guillermo Pérez) writes: > Please keep the 2.95 support I use to use a lot, on not new hardware. > If you have old hardware with not much resources gcc 2.95 works just fine and > fast, even you build the main kernel on other machine, by compatibility > issues one or two drivers should be builded a lot of times into the older > hardware, then we are forced to build gcc 3.4 or something like. Moreover I get some weird networking problems which prevent setting up the routes (RNETLINK invalid argument messages) when I compile my kernel with 4.0.1 while the same kernel, same config works fine compiled with 3.2.3... So eventhough 4.0 is supposed to be supported, it doesn't work too well in my case. -- Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
El Domingo, 31 de Julio de 2005 17:26, escribió: > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 . > [1] support removed: 2.95, 2.96, 3.0, 3.1 Please keep the 2.95 support I use to use a lot, on not new hardware. If you have old hardware with not much resources gcc 2.95 works just fine and fast, even you build the main kernel on other machine, by compatibility issues one or two drivers should be builded a lot of times into the older hardware, then we are forced to build gcc 3.4 or something like. :( -- Gustavo Guillermo Pérez Compunauta uLinux www.compunauta.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
El Domingo, 31 de Julio de 2005 17:26, escribió: This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 . [1] support removed: 2.95, 2.96, 3.0, 3.1 Please keep the 2.95 support I use to use a lot, on not new hardware. If you have old hardware with not much resources gcc 2.95 works just fine and fast, even you build the main kernel on other machine, by compatibility issues one or two drivers should be builded a lot of times into the older hardware, then we are forced to build gcc 3.4 or something like. :( -- Gustavo Guillermo Pérez Compunauta uLinux www.compunauta.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gustavo Guillermo Pérez) writes: Please keep the 2.95 support I use to use a lot, on not new hardware. If you have old hardware with not much resources gcc 2.95 works just fine and fast, even you build the main kernel on other machine, by compatibility issues one or two drivers should be builded a lot of times into the older hardware, then we are forced to build gcc 3.4 or something like. Moreover I get some weird networking problems which prevent setting up the routes (RNETLINK invalid argument messages) when I compile my kernel with 4.0.1 while the same kernel, same config works fine compiled with 3.2.3... So eventhough 4.0 is supposed to be supported, it doesn't work too well in my case. -- Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On 8/1/05, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 . The advantages are: - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might not be detected for a longer amount of time Another disadvantage is you'll really piss of the VAX developers (all 3 of us!!!, well me not so much anymore...) I think there is a gcc 4.x compiler nearly capable of building a kernel for the VAX... Dave. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Mon, 2005-08-01 00:26:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 . > > The advantages are: > - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] > allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds [...] > [1] support removed: 2.95, 2.96, 3.0, 3.1 > still supported: 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.0 This patch in mind, I built the vax-linux kernel again with gcc-HEAD (gcc-4.1) and it blew off in: $ make V=1 ARCH=vax CROSS_COMPILE=vax-linux- mopboot [...] vax-linux-gcc -Wp,-MD,init/.initramfs.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-171439-vax-linux/install/usr/lib/gcc/vax-linux/4.1.0/include -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -ffreestanding -O1 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-pointer-sign-DKBUILD_BASENAME=initramfs -DKBUILD_MODNAME=initramfs -c -o init/initramfs.o init/initramfs.c init/initramfs.c:10: error: message causes a section type conflict init/initramfs.c:33: error: head causes a section type conflict init/initramfs.c:80: error: ino causes a section type conflict init/initramfs.c:80: error: major causes a section type conflict [...] Adding -fno-unit-at-a-time fixed this, but from what Google found, this is actually a bug in the C sources: the __initdata variables are to be put into a read-only segment but are missing a const qualifyer, so -fno-unit-at-a-time seems to hide a bug here. Could somebody comment on this? Or shall I open a bug report for GCC? MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Mon, 2005-08-01 00:26:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 . The advantages are: - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds [...] [1] support removed: 2.95, 2.96, 3.0, 3.1 still supported: 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.0 This patch in mind, I built the vax-linux kernel again with gcc-HEAD (gcc-4.1) and it blew off in: $ make V=1 ARCH=vax CROSS_COMPILE=vax-linux- mopboot [...] vax-linux-gcc -Wp,-MD,init/.initramfs.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /home/jbglaw/vax-linux/scm/build-20050802-171439-vax-linux/install/usr/lib/gcc/vax-linux/4.1.0/include -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -ffreestanding -O1 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-pointer-sign-DKBUILD_BASENAME=initramfs -DKBUILD_MODNAME=initramfs -c -o init/initramfs.o init/initramfs.c init/initramfs.c:10: error: message causes a section type conflict init/initramfs.c:33: error: head causes a section type conflict init/initramfs.c:80: error: ino causes a section type conflict init/initramfs.c:80: error: major causes a section type conflict [...] Adding -fno-unit-at-a-time fixed this, but from what Google found, this is actually a bug in the C sources: the __initdata variables are to be put into a read-only segment but are missing a const qualifyer, so -fno-unit-at-a-time seems to hide a bug here. Could somebody comment on this? Or shall I open a bug report for GCC? MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]. +49-172-7608481 _ O _ Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf| Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 11:01:45PM -0400, Kurt Wall wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Adrian Bunk took 109 lines to write: > > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 . > > > > The advantages are: > > - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] > > allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds > > - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely > > used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might > > not be detected for a longer amount of time > > > > My personal opinion about the time and space a compilation requires is > > that this is no longer that much of a problem for modern hardware, and > > in the worst case you can compile the kernels for older machines on more > > recent machines. > > Environments that require kernel compilation, often multiple times, > testing, benefit from shorter compile times. It can be the difference > between, say, completing a test suite overnight instead of having to > wait until tomorrow afternoon. Keeping 2.95, at least, has some value > in such environments. I *do* still use 2.95 a lot, and I'm not alone, judging from people around me. 2.95 has been the reference for a very long time, that's why it's still so much present. 3.0 and 3.1 (even 3.2) have been there for a very short time frame, but 2.95 and 3.3 really seem to be references compilers. So please keep support for 2.95. Cheers, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 11:01:45PM -0400, Kurt Wall wrote: On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Adrian Bunk took 109 lines to write: This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 . The advantages are: - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might not be detected for a longer amount of time My personal opinion about the time and space a compilation requires is that this is no longer that much of a problem for modern hardware, and in the worst case you can compile the kernels for older machines on more recent machines. Environments that require kernel compilation, often multiple times, testing, benefit from shorter compile times. It can be the difference between, say, completing a test suite overnight instead of having to wait until tomorrow afternoon. Keeping 2.95, at least, has some value in such environments. I *do* still use 2.95 a lot, and I'm not alone, judging from people around me. 2.95 has been the reference for a very long time, that's why it's still so much present. 3.0 and 3.1 (even 3.2) have been there for a very short time frame, but 2.95 and 3.3 really seem to be references compilers. So please keep support for 2.95. Cheers, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 . Go away. -miles -- "Suppose He doesn't give a shit? Suppose there is a God but He just doesn't give a shit?" [George Carlin] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Adrian Bunk took 109 lines to write: > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 . > > The advantages are: > - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] > allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds > - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely > used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might > not be detected for a longer amount of time > > My personal opinion about the time and space a compilation requires is > that this is no longer that much of a problem for modern hardware, and > in the worst case you can compile the kernels for older machines on more > recent machines. Environments that require kernel compilation, often multiple times, testing, benefit from shorter compile times. It can be the difference between, say, completing a test suite overnight instead of having to wait until tomorrow afternoon. Keeping 2.95, at least, has some value in such environments. Kurt -- A chubby man with a white beard and a red suit will approach you soon. Avoid him. He's a Commie. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
Hi. On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 08:36, David S. Miller wrote: > Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest > way to get a kernel build done and that's important for > many people. Yes, please don't remove 2.95 support. Regards, Nigel -- Evolution. Enumerate the requirements. Consider the interdependencies. Calculate the probabilities. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200 > - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely > used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might > not be detected for a longer amount of time Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest way to get a kernel build done and that's important for many people. And with 4.0 being a scary regression in the compile time performance area compared to 3.4, this becomes even more important to keep around. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200 - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might not be detected for a longer amount of time Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest way to get a kernel build done and that's important for many people. And with 4.0 being a scary regression in the compile time performance area compared to 3.4, this becomes even more important to keep around. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
Hi. On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 08:36, David S. Miller wrote: Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest way to get a kernel build done and that's important for many people. Yes, please don't remove 2.95 support. Regards, Nigel -- Evolution. Enumerate the requirements. Consider the interdependencies. Calculate the probabilities. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Adrian Bunk took 109 lines to write: This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 . The advantages are: - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might not be detected for a longer amount of time My personal opinion about the time and space a compilation requires is that this is no longer that much of a problem for modern hardware, and in the worst case you can compile the kernels for older machines on more recent machines. Environments that require kernel compilation, often multiple times, testing, benefit from shorter compile times. It can be the difference between, say, completing a test suite overnight instead of having to wait until tomorrow afternoon. Keeping 2.95, at least, has some value in such environments. Kurt -- A chubby man with a white beard and a red suit will approach you soon. Avoid him. He's a Commie. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc 3.2
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 . Go away. -miles -- Suppose He doesn't give a shit? Suppose there is a God but He just doesn't give a shit? [George Carlin] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
