linux-toolchains.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc: linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: gcc 5 & 6 & others already out of date?
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:16:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y0hH5NelZ03yfQuU@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y0g+wTTJmlaFVLzr@zx2c4.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1213 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 10:37:21AM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

> Regarding "one extreme to the other", I suspect that in spite of my
> arguments, which would seem to justify an extreme, the actual thing I
> suggested is a bit more moderate: let's support the latest 2 or 3 gccs
> at the time of kernel release. If we choose 3, that's roughly 3 years of
> gccs, right? 3 years seems like a fairly long amount of time.

I was looking at your suggestion there - as a Debian user that feels a
touch enthusiastic (though practically probably not actually a problem)
since it's not too far off the release cadence, current Debian is at GCC
10 and we're not due for another release till sometime next year which
will be right on the three years.  There does also seem to be a
contingent of people running enterprise distros managed by an IT
department or whatever who may take a while to get round to pushing out
new versions so for example might still for example be running Ubuntu
20.04 rather than 22.04 (never mind the people I know are sitting on
18.04 but that's another thing).  

If we went for three years extreme would probably be an overstatment but
it's definitely an active push.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 484 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-10-13 17:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-13  1:36 gcc 5 & 6 & others already out of date? Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-13 12:22 ` David Laight
2022-10-13 12:59 ` Mark Brown
2022-10-13 15:23   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-13 16:18     ` Willy Tarreau
2022-10-14  4:28       ` David Laight
2022-10-14  5:27         ` Willy Tarreau
2022-10-13 16:26     ` Mark Brown
2022-10-13 16:37       ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-13 16:51         ` Willy Tarreau
2022-10-13 17:16         ` Mark Brown [this message]
2022-10-13 18:38           ` Florian Weimer
2022-10-13 20:23             ` Mark Brown
2022-10-14  6:15               ` Florian Weimer
2022-10-13 18:39     ` Florian Weimer
2022-10-13 21:03       ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-10-14  6:37         ` Florian Weimer
2022-10-13 21:08 ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-10-14  1:31   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-10-14 11:13   ` Mark Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Y0hH5NelZ03yfQuU@sirena.org.uk \
    --to=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
    --cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).