On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 07:05:22PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 10/16/2016 06:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:16:04PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The first two patches in the series fix the concrete bug (a boot crash
> > > when using gcc 7.
On 10/16/2016, 06:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Is gcc 7.0 "stable" enough that people will start to be using it soon?
Standard suse kernel builds and boots with gcc 7 just fine. But only
with 02/12 from this series. So perhaps it's not stable enough for
production use, but at least I was abo
On 10/16/2016 06:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:16:04PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
Hi,
The first two patches in the series fix the concrete bug (a boot crash
when using gcc 7.0+) by defining new wrappers for arrays defined in
linker scripts. These two patches shoul
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 05:16:04PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The first two patches in the series fix the concrete bug (a boot crash
> when using gcc 7.0+) by defining new wrappers for arrays defined in
> linker scripts. These two patches should probably go into the kernel +
> stable as
Hi,
The first two patches in the series fix the concrete bug (a boot crash
when using gcc 7.0+) by defining new wrappers for arrays defined in
linker scripts. These two patches should probably go into the kernel +
stable as soon as people are happy with the new interface. Not sure who
would pick t
5 matches
Mail list logo