On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 29/02/2024 14:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 29.02.2024 14:44, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi Jan,
> > >
> > > On 29/02/2024 12:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 29.02.2024 13:32, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > On 29/02/2024 12:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 23:11 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Furthermore, Linux has regularly been bumping minimum toolchain
> versions
> due to code generation issues, and we'd be foolish not pay attention.
Do they document that?
It looks like their doc is pretty old, because in
On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 08:58 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.02.2024 23:58, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 27/02/2024 07:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 26.02.2024 18:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > > > This patch doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
> > > > GNU Binutils; rather, these
On 29/02/2024 14:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 14:44, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 29/02/2024 12:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 13:32, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/02/2024 12:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 13:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 29/02/2024 10:23 am, Julien
On 29.02.2024 14:44, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 29/02/2024 12:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.02.2024 13:32, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 29/02/2024 12:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 13:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 29/02/2024 10:23 am, Julien Grall wrote:
> IOW it
Hi Jan,
On 29/02/2024 12:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 13:32, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/02/2024 12:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 13:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 29/02/2024 10:23 am, Julien Grall wrote:
IOW it is hard for me to see why RISC-V needs stronger restrictions
here
On 29.02.2024 13:32, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 29/02/2024 12:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.02.2024 13:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 29/02/2024 10:23 am, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> IOW it is hard for me to see why RISC-V needs stronger restrictions
>>> here
>>> than other architectures.
Hi,
On 29/02/2024 12:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 29.02.2024 13:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 29/02/2024 10:23 am, Julien Grall wrote:
IOW it is hard for me to see why RISC-V needs stronger restrictions
here
than other architectures. It ought to be possible to determine a
baseline
version. Even if
Hi Andrew,
On 29/02/2024 12:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 29/02/2024 10:23 am, Julien Grall wrote:
IOW it is hard for me to see why RISC-V needs stronger restrictions
here
than other architectures. It ought to be possible to determine a
baseline
version. Even if taking the desire to have "pause"
On 29.02.2024 13:05, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 29/02/2024 10:23 am, Julien Grall wrote:
> IOW it is hard for me to see why RISC-V needs stronger restrictions
> here
> than other architectures. It ought to be possible to determine a
> baseline
> version. Even if taking the
On 29/02/2024 10:23 am, Julien Grall wrote:
IOW it is hard for me to see why RISC-V needs stronger restrictions
here
than other architectures. It ought to be possible to determine a
baseline
version. Even if taking the desire to have "pause" available as a
On 29.02.2024 12:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.02.2024 11:23, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 29/02/2024 07:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> (And
>>> no, upgrading the ancient distros on that ancient hardware is not an
>>> option for me.)
>>
>> May I ask why? Is it because newer distros don't support your
On 29.02.2024 11:23, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 29/02/2024 07:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Therefore being too
>> eager there would mean I can't really / easily (smoke) test Xen
>> anymore on ancient hardware every once in a while. When afaict we do
>> too little of such testing already anyway, despite
On 29/02/2024 07:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.02.2024 23:58, Julien Grall wrote:
On 27/02/2024 07:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.02.2024 18:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
This patch doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
GNU Binutils; rather, these versions are specifically employed
On 28.02.2024 23:58, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 27/02/2024 07:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 26.02.2024 18:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> This patch doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
>>> GNU Binutils; rather, these versions are specifically employed by
>>> the Xen RISC-V container
On 28/02/2024 10:58 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 27/02/2024 07:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 26.02.2024 18:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> This patch doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
>>> GNU Binutils; rather, these versions are specifically employed by
>>> the Xen
Hi Jan,
On 27/02/2024 07:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.02.2024 18:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
This patch doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
GNU Binutils; rather, these versions are specifically employed by
the Xen RISC-V container and are anticipated to undergo continuous
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 08:55 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.02.2024 18:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > This patch doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
> > GNU Binutils; rather, these versions are specifically employed by
> > the Xen RISC-V container and are anticipated to undergo
On 26.02.2024 18:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> This patch doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
> GNU Binutils; rather, these versions are specifically employed by
> the Xen RISC-V container and are anticipated to undergo continuous
> testing.
Up and until that container would be
This patch doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
GNU Binutils; rather, these versions are specifically employed by
the Xen RISC-V container and are anticipated to undergo continuous
testing.
While it is feasible to utilize Clang, it's important to note that,
currently, there is no
20 matches
Mail list logo
