One more point: suggestions along the lines of "patch the kernel"
are no good in this case. Ever heard of git bisect? Once the proposed
Makefile changes are far enough in the past (5 years or so) - fine, but
until then you've just made life considerably more unpleasant for those
of us
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:41:18 + "Sven C. Dack" wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:07:03 -0500 "S. R. Wright" wrote:
> > I agree with Eric; while the workaround is to back rev the gcc and its
> > associated packages, I also build kernels straight from
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:07:03 -0500 "S. R. Wright" wrote:
> I agree with Eric; while the workaround is to back rev the gcc and its
> associated packages, I also build kernels straight from kernel.org,
> usually within hours of their availability and this has been working for
>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 08:07:03AM -0500, S. R. Wright wrote:
> As the kernel is the most important code gcc is ever likely to compile on
> debian or any other distro for that matter, this change should be backed
> out, and not reintroduced UNTIL the *official* kernel source is ready for
> it.
I agree with Eric; while the workaround is to back rev the gcc and its
associated packages, I also build kernels straight from kernel.org,
usually within hours of their availability and this has been working for
me for many years, and it is not sufficient to justify this change by
saying
On Friday, 21 October 2016 14:45:25 CEST Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> The Debian kernel packages still have a dependency on gcc-5, which may mean
> that the kernels are currently only built/supported with gcc-5.
vanilla kernels (Linus' tree and the stable ones) could be compiled just fine
with gcc
The Debian kernel packages still have a dependency on gcc-5, which may mean that
the kernels are currently only built/supported with gcc-5.
On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 11:22 -0500, S R Wright wrote:
> Concurring with Wolfgang; pulling the source straight from kernel.org
> and using identical .config
Control: tags -1 - patch
2016-10-20 18:48 GMT+02:00 Sven Joachim :
> On 2016-10-20 17:54 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>
>> Control: reassign -1 linux 4.7.8-1
>> Control: severity -1 serious
>> Control: tags -1 patch
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> 2016-10-20 14:02 GMT+02:00 David Weinehall
On 2016-10-20 17:54 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 linux 4.7.8-1
> Control: severity -1 serious
> Control: tags -1 patch
>
> Hi David,
>
> 2016-10-20 14:02 GMT+02:00 David Weinehall :
>> Package: gcc-6
>> Severity: important
>> Version: 6.2.0-7
>>
>>
Concurring with Wolfgang; pulling the source straight from kernel.org
and using identical .config files will work with 6.2.0-6 but fail with
6.2.0-7. I was able to build and install 4.8.3 with no issues after
back-revving gcc et. al. to 6.2.0-6
-- sRw
On 10/20/16 11:09, Wolfgang Walter
Hello,
with this version of gcc-6 I can't build vanilla kernels any more. It fails
with even with CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG disabled:
scripts/kconfig/mconf Kconfig
configuration written to .config
*** End of the configuration.
*** Execute 'make' to start the build or try 'make help'.
Control: reassign -1 linux 4.7.8-1
Control: severity -1 serious
Control: tags -1 patch
Hi David,
2016-10-20 14:02 GMT+02:00 David Weinehall :
> Package: gcc-6
> Severity: important
> Version: 6.2.0-7
>
> --enable-default-pie (first enabled in gcc-6 6.2.0-7) causes kernel
>
Package: gcc-6
Severity: important
Version: 6.2.0-7
--enable-default-pie (first enabled in gcc-6 6.2.0-7) causes kernel
builds to fail. If the kernel is configured with the stack protector
enabled it'll fail with a rather unhelpful error message claiming
that the compiler doesn't support
13 matches
Mail list logo