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
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
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
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
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
>>> >
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.
>>
>>
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
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
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
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
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 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.
>> >
>> >
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
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:
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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).
[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
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
28 matches
Mail list logo