On 14.02.2024 13:21, Oleksii wrote: > On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 10:52 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 05.02.2024 16:32, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kuroc...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> Changes in V4: >>> - Update version of GCC (12.2) and GNU Binutils (2.39) to the >>> version >>> which are in Xen's contrainter for RISC-V >>> --- >>> Changes in V3: >>> - new patch >>> --- >>> README | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/README b/README >>> index c8a108449e..9a898125e1 100644 >>> --- a/README >>> +++ b/README >>> @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ provided by your OS distributor: >>> - For ARM 64-bit: >>> - GCC 5.1 or later >>> - GNU Binutils 2.24 or later >>> + - For RISC-V 64-bit: >>> + - GCC 12.2 or later >>> + - GNU Binutils 2.39 or later >> >> And neither gcc 12.1 nor binutils 2.38 are good enough? Once again >> the >> question likely wouldn't have needed raising if there was a non-empty >> description ... > I haven't verified gcc 12.1 and binutils 2.38. gcc 12.2 and binutils > 2.39 were chosen because this veriosn is used in Xen contrainer for > RISC-V, on my system I have newer versions. So this is the minimal > versions which would be always tested and I can't be sure that the > lessser version will work fine, as there is not any compilation testing > for that. > >> >> Also - Clang pretty certainly supports RISC-V, too. Any information >> on >> a minimally required version there? > I haven't verified that. I am only testing gcc for now. > I can add this information to commit message.
Yes please. And if this isn't a firm lower bound, that fact imo wants reflecting in README itself as well. Jan
