From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934935AbcJ0H2p (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 03:28:45 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:42768 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934642AbcJ0H2l (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 03:28:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:28:24 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Andrew Morton Cc: Joe Perches , Adam Borowski , Michal Marek , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ben@decadent.org.uk, Sven Joachim Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: add -fno-PIE Message-ID: <20161027072824.rt3d6wngz7lrfb7u@linutronix.de> References: <20161021111600.9417-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20161021212127.GA32611@angband.pl> <87eg37niky.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> <1477250598.3561.4.camel@perches.com> <8760oinqly.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> <20161024074332.uomcxyhqo6aq7vxk@linutronix.de> <874m41mz4h.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> <20161025073002.czwx2hysib77i7d5@linutronix.de> <87eg33kni0.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87eg33kni0.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrew, On 2016-10-26 19:51:03 [+0200], Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2016-10-25 09:30 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > On 2016-10-24 19:32:30 [+0200], Sven Joachim wrote: > >> On 2016-10-24 09:43 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >> > >> > On 2016-10-24 09:38:49 [+0200], Sven Joachim wrote: > >> >> > >> >> But make still fails with it. :-( > >> > > >> > try setting CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y and please let me know if > >> > the resulting kernel built with v3.2 gcc boots & works. > >> > >> Sorry, I don't have gcc 3.2 around, and my gcc 3.3 environment produces > >> assembler errors in arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S. Maybe binutils 2.15 is > >> not recent enough anymore? > > I have done a few more tests, and I can confirm that binutils 2.17 is > the oldest version that works. Also, I have succeeded installing gcc > 3.2 in a Debian 4.0 chroot now. > > > so we use stone age gcc but take latest binutils and kernel? What about > > lifting the limit of gcc 3.2? > > Would probably make sense, since gcc 3.2 cannot compile kernel/bounds.c, > at least not on x86. > > ,---- > | CC kernel/bounds.s > | In file included from /tmp/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h:512, > | from include/linux/bitops.h:22, > | from include/linux/kernel.h:10, > | from include/asm-generic/bug.h:13, > | from /tmp/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:38, > | from include/linux/bug.h:4, > | from include/linux/page-flags.h:9, > | from kernel/bounds.c:9: > | /tmp/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h: In function `__arch_hweight32': > | /tmp/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h:29: syntax error before string constant > | make[1]: *** [kernel/bounds.s] Error 1 > `---- > > Building with gcc 3.3 is apparently still possible, although it produces > tons of warnings and a modpost section mismatch. Still, requiring gcc > 4.1 or newer would not be unreasonable, I think (still released a few > months earlier than binutils 2.17). I remember you had once a server box running some enterprise distro which had an old gcc. Do you see any reason for not lifting the minimum gcc version to v4.1 ? > Cheers, > Sven Sebastian