From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752427AbdI2P3h (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:29:37 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:34716 "EHLO mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751972AbdI2P3g (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:29:36 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAX82NeqpC0eN9zJ2W2STt1dD3aShyUANoWREQu1UHY47Jum5Vnl5Er60bbTJgM3rRNa5PTtAGTVQuTxD4l4EU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170929075130.unemx3lbusjd6f6q@gmail.com> References: <20170928074758.GS17200@yexl-desktop> <20170928164422.sl4z4sfbkyscbxrk@treble> <20170928170121.qpyyfjijuwdkfx7g@treble> <20170928191032.5fhnyrark5ebov4c@treble> <20170928215826.6sdpmwtkiydiytim@treble> <20170929075130.unemx3lbusjd6f6q@gmail.com> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:29:35 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rXYcMwV9RYLdtDfd4Vx4ouigwPk Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for GCC 4.4 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Josh Poimboeuf , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , kernel test robot , Andrey Ryabinin , Matthias Kaehlcke , Alexander Potapenko , Andy Lutomirski , Dmitriy Vyukov , Miguel Bernal Marin , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , LKP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> The kernel test robot report looked to be ignored as a "gcc-4.4 is too >> old to worry about" thing. [...] > > No, and sorry if my first reply grumbling about how old GCC 4.4 is sounded that > way! We have to live with compiler bugs no matter how old the compiler is, the > release cycles are decoupled to such a degree and external tooling propagates with > such high latencies that that's the only sane thing to do. > > We also officially support GCC 3.2 and later compilers. Had this regression not > been resolved within a week or so I was fully ready to queue up a revert commit, > no questions asked. FWIW, we had a discussion about which compiler versions actually still work earlier this year: We concluded that gcc-4.0 and earlier have been broken for a while without anyone caring. gcc-4.1 support is kept working in certain configurations primarily due to Geert using it for build testing, but my tests across multiple architectures showed that gcc-4.3 is needed on most other architectures already. Some architectures need even newer ones, and some features need compiler support that was added much later of course. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7346635531845149481==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Arnd Bergmann To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for GCC 4.4 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:29:35 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20170929075130.unemx3lbusjd6f6q@gmail.com> List-Id: --===============7346635531845149481== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Josh Poimboeuf = wrote: >> The kernel test robot report looked to be ignored as a "gcc-4.4 is too >> old to worry about" thing. [...] > > No, and sorry if my first reply grumbling about how old GCC 4.4 is sounde= d that > way! We have to live with compiler bugs no matter how old the compiler is= , the > release cycles are decoupled to such a degree and external tooling propag= ates with > such high latencies that that's the only sane thing to do. > > We also officially support GCC 3.2 and later compilers. Had this regressi= on not > been resolved within a week or so I was fully ready to queue up a revert = commit, > no questions asked. FWIW, we had a discussion about which compiler versions actually still work earlier this year: We concluded that gcc-4.0 and earlier have been broken for a while without anyone caring. gcc-4.1 support is kept working in certa= in configurations primarily due to Geert using it for build testing, but my te= sts across multiple architectures showed that gcc-4.3 is needed on most other architectures already. Some architectures need even newer ones, and some features need compiler support that was added much later of course. Arnd --===============7346635531845149481==--