[PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Masahiro Yamada]

The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
GCC 5.1.

When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
to 5.1 globally. [1]

I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

This commit updates the minimum versions in scripts/min-tool-version.sh
and Documentation/process/changes.rst with trivial code cleanups.

More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
be agreed and applied to the mainline first.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjHTpG+gMx9vqrZgo8Uw0NqA2kNjS87o63Zv3=WG2K3zA@mail.gmail.com/

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
---

I'd like Linus to pick up this patch
if there is no objection.


 Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +-
 arch/arm64/Kconfig                | 2 +-
 arch/powerpc/Kconfig              | 2 +-
 arch/riscv/Kconfig                | 2 +-
 include/linux/compiler-gcc.h      | 6 +-----
 lib/Kconfig.debug                 | 2 +-
 scripts/min-tool-version.sh       | 8 +-------
 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
index dac17711dc11..cf104a8d1850 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils.
 ====================== ===============  ========================================
         Program        Minimal version       Command to check the version
 ====================== ===============  ========================================
-GNU C                  4.9              gcc --version
+GNU C                  5.2              gcc --version
 Clang/LLVM (optional)  10.0.1           clang --version
 GNU make               3.81             make --version
 binutils               2.23             ld -v
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 7f2a80091337..fae9514dabab 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ config ARM64
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_LTO_CLANG_THIN
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_CFI_CLANG
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW
-	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && (GCC_VERSION >= 50000 || CC_IS_CLANG)
+	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_NUMA_BALANCING
 	select ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION if COMPAT
 	select ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_BPF_JIT
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index 1e6230bea09d..10dc47eac122 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ config PPC
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_TRACER
-	select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS			if GCC_VERSION >= 50200   # plugin support on gcc <= 5.1 is buggy on PPC
+	select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS
 	select HAVE_GENERIC_VDSO
 	select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT		if PERF_EVENTS && (PPC_BOOK3S || PPC_8xx)
 	select HAVE_IDE
diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 4515a10c5d22..748a5b37a0e5 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ config ARCH_RV32I
 config ARCH_RV64I
 	bool "RV64I"
 	select 64BIT
-	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && GCC_VERSION >= 50000
+	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && CC_IS_GCC
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if MMU
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS if HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
 	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
index 5d97ef738a57..3608189dfc29 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
@@ -98,10 +98,8 @@
 
 #if GCC_VERSION >= 70000
 #define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 5
-#elif GCC_VERSION >= 50000
+#else
 #define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 4
-#elif GCC_VERSION >= 40902
-#define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 3
 #endif
 
 #if __has_attribute(__no_sanitize_address__)
@@ -122,9 +120,7 @@
 #define __no_sanitize_undefined
 #endif
 
-#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100
 #define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW 1
-#endif
 
 /*
  * Turn individual warnings and errors on and off locally, depending
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 678c13967580..0d0ed298905d 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ config DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4
 
 config DEBUG_INFO_DWARF5
 	bool "Generate DWARF Version 5 debuginfo"
-	depends on GCC_VERSION >= 50000 || (CC_IS_CLANG && (AS_IS_LLVM || (AS_IS_GNU && AS_VERSION >= 23502)))
+	depends on CC_IS_GCC || (CC_IS_CLANG && (AS_IS_LLVM || (AS_IS_GNU && AS_VERSION >= 23502)))
 	depends on !DEBUG_INFO_BTF
 	help
 	  Generate DWARF v5 debug info. Requires binutils 2.35.2, gcc 5.0+ (gcc
diff --git a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
index d22cf91212b0..d5d0d26b8e7d 100755
--- a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
+++ b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
@@ -17,13 +17,7 @@ binutils)
 	echo 2.23.0
 	;;
 gcc)
-	# https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63293
-	# https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210107111841.GN1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk
-	if [ "$SRCARCH" = arm64 ]; then
-		echo 5.1.0
-	else
-		echo 4.9.0
-	fi
+	echo 5.2.0
 	;;
 icc)
 	# temporary
-- 
2.27.0

[PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Masahiro Yamada]

The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
GCC 5.1.

When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
to 5.1 globally. [1]

I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

This commit updates the minimum versions in scripts/min-tool-version.sh
and Documentation/process/changes.rst with trivial code cleanups.

More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
be agreed and applied to the mainline first.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjHTpG+gMx9vqrZgo8Uw0NqA2kNjS87o63Zv3=WG2K3zA@mail.gmail.com/

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
---

I'd like Linus to pick up this patch
if there is no objection.


 Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +-
 arch/arm64/Kconfig                | 2 +-
 arch/powerpc/Kconfig              | 2 +-
 arch/riscv/Kconfig                | 2 +-
 include/linux/compiler-gcc.h      | 6 +-----
 lib/Kconfig.debug                 | 2 +-
 scripts/min-tool-version.sh       | 8 +-------
 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
index dac17711dc11..cf104a8d1850 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils.
 ====================== ===============  ========================================
         Program        Minimal version       Command to check the version
 ====================== ===============  ========================================
-GNU C                  4.9              gcc --version
+GNU C                  5.2              gcc --version
 Clang/LLVM (optional)  10.0.1           clang --version
 GNU make               3.81             make --version
 binutils               2.23             ld -v
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 7f2a80091337..fae9514dabab 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ config ARM64
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_LTO_CLANG_THIN
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_CFI_CLANG
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW
-	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && (GCC_VERSION >= 50000 || CC_IS_CLANG)
+	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_NUMA_BALANCING
 	select ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION if COMPAT
 	select ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_BPF_JIT
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index 1e6230bea09d..10dc47eac122 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ config PPC
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_TRACER
-	select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS			if GCC_VERSION >= 50200   # plugin support on gcc <= 5.1 is buggy on PPC
+	select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS
 	select HAVE_GENERIC_VDSO
 	select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT		if PERF_EVENTS && (PPC_BOOK3S || PPC_8xx)
 	select HAVE_IDE
diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 4515a10c5d22..748a5b37a0e5 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ config ARCH_RV32I
 config ARCH_RV64I
 	bool "RV64I"
 	select 64BIT
-	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && GCC_VERSION >= 50000
+	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && CC_IS_GCC
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if MMU
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS if HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
 	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
index 5d97ef738a57..3608189dfc29 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
@@ -98,10 +98,8 @@
 
 #if GCC_VERSION >= 70000
 #define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 5
-#elif GCC_VERSION >= 50000
+#else
 #define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 4
-#elif GCC_VERSION >= 40902
-#define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 3
 #endif
 
 #if __has_attribute(__no_sanitize_address__)
@@ -122,9 +120,7 @@
 #define __no_sanitize_undefined
 #endif
 
-#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100
 #define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW 1
-#endif
 
 /*
  * Turn individual warnings and errors on and off locally, depending
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 678c13967580..0d0ed298905d 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ config DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4
 
 config DEBUG_INFO_DWARF5
 	bool "Generate DWARF Version 5 debuginfo"
-	depends on GCC_VERSION >= 50000 || (CC_IS_CLANG && (AS_IS_LLVM || (AS_IS_GNU && AS_VERSION >= 23502)))
+	depends on CC_IS_GCC || (CC_IS_CLANG && (AS_IS_LLVM || (AS_IS_GNU && AS_VERSION >= 23502)))
 	depends on !DEBUG_INFO_BTF
 	help
 	  Generate DWARF v5 debug info. Requires binutils 2.35.2, gcc 5.0+ (gcc
diff --git a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
index d22cf91212b0..d5d0d26b8e7d 100755
--- a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
+++ b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
@@ -17,13 +17,7 @@ binutils)
 	echo 2.23.0
 	;;
 gcc)
-	# https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63293
-	# https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210107111841.GN1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk
-	if [ "$SRCARCH" = arm64 ]; then
-		echo 5.1.0
-	else
-		echo 4.9.0
-	fi
+	echo 5.2.0
 	;;
 icc)
 	# temporary
-- 
2.27.0


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Masahiro Yamada]

The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
GCC 5.1.

When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
to 5.1 globally. [1]

I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

This commit updates the minimum versions in scripts/min-tool-version.sh
and Documentation/process/changes.rst with trivial code cleanups.

More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
be agreed and applied to the mainline first.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjHTpG+gMx9vqrZgo8Uw0NqA2kNjS87o63Zv3=WG2K3zA@mail.gmail.com/

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
---

I'd like Linus to pick up this patch
if there is no objection.


 Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +-
 arch/arm64/Kconfig                | 2 +-
 arch/powerpc/Kconfig              | 2 +-
 arch/riscv/Kconfig                | 2 +-
 include/linux/compiler-gcc.h      | 6 +-----
 lib/Kconfig.debug                 | 2 +-
 scripts/min-tool-version.sh       | 8 +-------
 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
index dac17711dc11..cf104a8d1850 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils.
 ====================== ===============  ========================================
         Program        Minimal version       Command to check the version
 ====================== ===============  ========================================
-GNU C                  4.9              gcc --version
+GNU C                  5.2              gcc --version
 Clang/LLVM (optional)  10.0.1           clang --version
 GNU make               3.81             make --version
 binutils               2.23             ld -v
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 7f2a80091337..fae9514dabab 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ config ARM64
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_LTO_CLANG_THIN
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_CFI_CLANG
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW
-	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && (GCC_VERSION >= 50000 || CC_IS_CLANG)
+	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_NUMA_BALANCING
 	select ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION if COMPAT
 	select ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_BPF_JIT
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index 1e6230bea09d..10dc47eac122 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ config PPC
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_TRACER
-	select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS			if GCC_VERSION >= 50200   # plugin support on gcc <= 5.1 is buggy on PPC
+	select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS
 	select HAVE_GENERIC_VDSO
 	select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT		if PERF_EVENTS && (PPC_BOOK3S || PPC_8xx)
 	select HAVE_IDE
diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 4515a10c5d22..748a5b37a0e5 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ config ARCH_RV32I
 config ARCH_RV64I
 	bool "RV64I"
 	select 64BIT
-	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && GCC_VERSION >= 50000
+	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && CC_IS_GCC
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if MMU
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS if HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
 	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
index 5d97ef738a57..3608189dfc29 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
@@ -98,10 +98,8 @@
 
 #if GCC_VERSION >= 70000
 #define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 5
-#elif GCC_VERSION >= 50000
+#else
 #define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 4
-#elif GCC_VERSION >= 40902
-#define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 3
 #endif
 
 #if __has_attribute(__no_sanitize_address__)
@@ -122,9 +120,7 @@
 #define __no_sanitize_undefined
 #endif
 
-#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100
 #define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW 1
-#endif
 
 /*
  * Turn individual warnings and errors on and off locally, depending
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 678c13967580..0d0ed298905d 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ config DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4
 
 config DEBUG_INFO_DWARF5
 	bool "Generate DWARF Version 5 debuginfo"
-	depends on GCC_VERSION >= 50000 || (CC_IS_CLANG && (AS_IS_LLVM || (AS_IS_GNU && AS_VERSION >= 23502)))
+	depends on CC_IS_GCC || (CC_IS_CLANG && (AS_IS_LLVM || (AS_IS_GNU && AS_VERSION >= 23502)))
 	depends on !DEBUG_INFO_BTF
 	help
 	  Generate DWARF v5 debug info. Requires binutils 2.35.2, gcc 5.0+ (gcc
diff --git a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
index d22cf91212b0..d5d0d26b8e7d 100755
--- a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
+++ b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
@@ -17,13 +17,7 @@ binutils)
 	echo 2.23.0
 	;;
 gcc)
-	# https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63293
-	# https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210107111841.GN1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk
-	if [ "$SRCARCH" = arm64 ]; then
-		echo 5.1.0
-	else
-		echo 4.9.0
-	fi
+	echo 5.2.0
 	;;
 icc)
 	# temporary
-- 
2.27.0

[PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Masahiro Yamada]

The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
GCC 5.1.

When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
to 5.1 globally. [1]

I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

This commit updates the minimum versions in scripts/min-tool-version.sh
and Documentation/process/changes.rst with trivial code cleanups.

More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
be agreed and applied to the mainline first.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjHTpG+gMx9vqrZgo8Uw0NqA2kNjS87o63Zv3=WG2K3zA@mail.gmail.com/

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
---

I'd like Linus to pick up this patch
if there is no objection.


 Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +-
 arch/arm64/Kconfig                | 2 +-
 arch/powerpc/Kconfig              | 2 +-
 arch/riscv/Kconfig                | 2 +-
 include/linux/compiler-gcc.h      | 6 +-----
 lib/Kconfig.debug                 | 2 +-
 scripts/min-tool-version.sh       | 8 +-------
 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
index dac17711dc11..cf104a8d1850 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils.
 ====================== ===============  ========================================
         Program        Minimal version       Command to check the version
 ====================== ===============  ========================================
-GNU C                  4.9              gcc --version
+GNU C                  5.2              gcc --version
 Clang/LLVM (optional)  10.0.1           clang --version
 GNU make               3.81             make --version
 binutils               2.23             ld -v
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 7f2a80091337..fae9514dabab 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ config ARM64
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_LTO_CLANG_THIN
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_CFI_CLANG
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW
-	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && (GCC_VERSION >= 50000 || CC_IS_CLANG)
+	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128
 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_NUMA_BALANCING
 	select ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION if COMPAT
 	select ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_BPF_JIT
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index 1e6230bea09d..10dc47eac122 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ config PPC
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
 	select HAVE_FUNCTION_TRACER
-	select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS			if GCC_VERSION >= 50200   # plugin support on gcc <= 5.1 is buggy on PPC
+	select HAVE_GCC_PLUGINS
 	select HAVE_GENERIC_VDSO
 	select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT		if PERF_EVENTS && (PPC_BOOK3S || PPC_8xx)
 	select HAVE_IDE
diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 4515a10c5d22..748a5b37a0e5 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ config ARCH_RV32I
 config ARCH_RV64I
 	bool "RV64I"
 	select 64BIT
-	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && GCC_VERSION >= 50000
+	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 if CC_HAS_INT128 && CC_IS_GCC
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if MMU
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS if HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
 	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
index 5d97ef738a57..3608189dfc29 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
@@ -98,10 +98,8 @@
 
 #if GCC_VERSION >= 70000
 #define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 5
-#elif GCC_VERSION >= 50000
+#else
 #define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 4
-#elif GCC_VERSION >= 40902
-#define KASAN_ABI_VERSION 3
 #endif
 
 #if __has_attribute(__no_sanitize_address__)
@@ -122,9 +120,7 @@
 #define __no_sanitize_undefined
 #endif
 
-#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100
 #define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW 1
-#endif
 
 /*
  * Turn individual warnings and errors on and off locally, depending
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 678c13967580..0d0ed298905d 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ config DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4
 
 config DEBUG_INFO_DWARF5
 	bool "Generate DWARF Version 5 debuginfo"
-	depends on GCC_VERSION >= 50000 || (CC_IS_CLANG && (AS_IS_LLVM || (AS_IS_GNU && AS_VERSION >= 23502)))
+	depends on CC_IS_GCC || (CC_IS_CLANG && (AS_IS_LLVM || (AS_IS_GNU && AS_VERSION >= 23502)))
 	depends on !DEBUG_INFO_BTF
 	help
 	  Generate DWARF v5 debug info. Requires binutils 2.35.2, gcc 5.0+ (gcc
diff --git a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
index d22cf91212b0..d5d0d26b8e7d 100755
--- a/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
+++ b/scripts/min-tool-version.sh
@@ -17,13 +17,7 @@ binutils)
 	echo 2.23.0
 	;;
 gcc)
-	# https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63293
-	# https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210107111841.GN1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk
-	if [ "$SRCARCH" = arm64 ]; then
-		echo 5.1.0
-	else
-		echo 4.9.0
-	fi
+	echo 5.2.0
 	;;
 icc)
 	# temporary
-- 
2.27.0


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.

+1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.

Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.

+1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.

Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>

Cheers,
Miguel

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.

+1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.

Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.

+1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.

Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>

Cheers,
Miguel

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 01/05/2021 à 17:52, Miguel Ojeda a écrit :
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
>> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
> 
> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> 

On powerpc this will allow us to remove commit https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commit/592bbe9c505d

Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>

Christophe

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 01/05/2021 à 17:52, Miguel Ojeda a écrit :
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
>> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
> 
> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> 

On powerpc this will allow us to remove commit https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commit/592bbe9c505d

Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>

Christophe

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 01/05/2021 à 17:52, Miguel Ojeda a écrit :
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
>> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
> 
> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> 

On powerpc this will allow us to remove commit https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commit/592bbe9c505d

Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>

Christophe

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 01/05/2021 à 17:52, Miguel Ojeda a écrit :
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
>> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
> 
> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> 

On powerpc this will allow us to remove commit https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commit/592bbe9c505d

Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>

Christophe

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> > be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
> 
> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.

Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> > be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
> 
> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.

Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html




_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> > be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
> 
> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.

Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
> > be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
> 
> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.

Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html




_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.  Do you
really want to require bleeding edge tools?


Segher

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.  Do you
really want to require bleeding edge tools?


Segher

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.  Do you
really want to require bleeding edge tools?


Segher

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.  Do you
really want to require bleeding edge tools?


Segher

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Everyone should always use an as new release as practical

[]

> The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.

You argue slightly against yourself here.

Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.

clang requires a _very_ recent version.
gcc _could_ require a later version.
Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.

gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Everyone should always use an as new release as practical

[]

> The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.

You argue slightly against yourself here.

Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.

clang requires a _very_ recent version.
gcc _could_ require a later version.
Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.

gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Everyone should always use an as new release as practical

[]

> The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.

You argue slightly against yourself here.

Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.

clang requires a _very_ recent version.
gcc _could_ require a later version.
Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.

gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Everyone should always use an as new release as practical

[]

> The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.

You argue slightly against yourself here.

Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.

clang requires a _very_ recent version.
gcc _could_ require a later version.
Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.

gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.



_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
> 
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Everyone should always use an as new release as practical
> 
> []
> 
> > The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.
> 
> You argue slightly against yourself here.

I don't?

> Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.
> 
> clang requires a _very_ recent version.
> gcc _could_ require a later version.
> Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.

I have no idea what you mean?

> gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.

And there will be a new GCC 8 release very soon now!

The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
not.


Segher

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
> 
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Everyone should always use an as new release as practical
> 
> []
> 
> > The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.
> 
> You argue slightly against yourself here.

I don't?

> Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.
> 
> clang requires a _very_ recent version.
> gcc _could_ require a later version.
> Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.

I have no idea what you mean?

> gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.

And there will be a new GCC 8 release very soon now!

The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
not.


Segher

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
> 
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Everyone should always use an as new release as practical
> 
> []
> 
> > The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.
> 
> You argue slightly against yourself here.

I don't?

> Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.
> 
> clang requires a _very_ recent version.
> gcc _could_ require a later version.
> Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.

I have no idea what you mean?

> gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.

And there will be a new GCC 8 release very soon now!

The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
not.


Segher

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
> 
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Everyone should always use an as new release as practical
> 
> []
> 
> > The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.
> 
> You argue slightly against yourself here.

I don't?

> Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.
> 
> clang requires a _very_ recent version.
> gcc _could_ require a later version.
> Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.

I have no idea what you mean?

> gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.

And there will be a new GCC 8 release very soon now!

The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
not.


Segher

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Ali Kaasinen]

On 02/05/2021 23.32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
>> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> Everyone should always use an as new release as practical
>> []
>>
>>> The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.
>> You argue slightly against yourself here.
> I don't?
>
>> Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.
>>
>> clang requires a _very_ recent version.
>> gcc _could_ require a later version.
>> Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> I have no idea what you mean?
>
>> gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.
> And there will be a new GCC 8 release very soon now!
>
> The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
> they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
> not.
>
>
> Segher

Users & especially devs should upgrade then. 3 years of not updating 
your compiler - if you regularly build the kernel - seems nonsensical.


Ali

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Ali Kaasinen]

On 02/05/2021 23.32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
>> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> Everyone should always use an as new release as practical
>> []
>>
>>> The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.
>> You argue slightly against yourself here.
> I don't?
>
>> Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.
>>
>> clang requires a _very_ recent version.
>> gcc _could_ require a later version.
>> Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> I have no idea what you mean?
>
>> gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.
> And there will be a new GCC 8 release very soon now!
>
> The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
> they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
> not.
>
>
> Segher

Users & especially devs should upgrade then. 3 years of not updating 
your compiler - if you regularly build the kernel - seems nonsensical.


Ali

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Ali Kaasinen]

On 02/05/2021 23.32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
>> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> Everyone should always use an as new release as practical
>> []
>>
>>> The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.
>> You argue slightly against yourself here.
> I don't?
>
>> Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.
>>
>> clang requires a _very_ recent version.
>> gcc _could_ require a later version.
>> Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> I have no idea what you mean?
>
>> gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.
> And there will be a new GCC 8 release very soon now!
>
> The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
> they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
> not.
>
>
> Segher

Users & especially devs should upgrade then. 3 years of not updating 
your compiler - if you regularly build the kernel - seems nonsensical.


Ali

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Ali Kaasinen]

On 02/05/2021 23.32, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 07:41:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
>> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 13:37 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> Everyone should always use an as new release as practical
>> []
>>
>>> The latest GCC 5 release is only three and a half years old.
>> You argue slightly against yourself here.
> I don't?
>
>> Yes, it's mostly a question of practicality vs latest.
>>
>> clang requires a _very_ recent version.
>> gcc _could_ require a later version.
>> Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> I have no idea what you mean?
>
>> gcc 8.1 is now 3 years old today.
> And there will be a new GCC 8 release very soon now!
>
> The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
> they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
> not.
>
>
> Segher

Users & especially devs should upgrade then. 3 years of not updating 
your compiler - if you regularly build the kernel - seems nonsensical.


Ali

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 1:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
> they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
> not.

So this should be our main issue - not how old a compiler is, but how
our compiler version limitations end up possibly making it harder for
users to upgrade.

Of course, one issue there is whether said users would have upgraded
regardless - if you have a very old distribution, how likely are you
to upgrade the kernel at all?

But we do very much want to encourage people to upgrade their kernels,
even if they might be running otherwise fairly old user space. If for
no other reason than that it's good for our kernel coverage testing -
the more different distributions people test a new kernel with, the
better. And some of the less common architectures have their own
issues, with distros possibly not even supporting them any more (if
they ever did - considering all the odd ad-hoc cross-compiler builds
people have had..)

This is why "our clang support requires a very recent version of
clang" is not relevant - distributions won't have old versions of
clang anyway, and even if they do, such distributions will be
gcc-based, so "build the kernel with clang" for that situation is
perhaps an exercise for some intrepid person who is willing to do odd
and unusual things, and might as well build their own clang version
too.

So I really wish people didn't get hung about some "three years ago"
or similar. It's not relevant.

What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
last time.

Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
different distros.

           Linus

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 1:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
> they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
> not.

So this should be our main issue - not how old a compiler is, but how
our compiler version limitations end up possibly making it harder for
users to upgrade.

Of course, one issue there is whether said users would have upgraded
regardless - if you have a very old distribution, how likely are you
to upgrade the kernel at all?

But we do very much want to encourage people to upgrade their kernels,
even if they might be running otherwise fairly old user space. If for
no other reason than that it's good for our kernel coverage testing -
the more different distributions people test a new kernel with, the
better. And some of the less common architectures have their own
issues, with distros possibly not even supporting them any more (if
they ever did - considering all the odd ad-hoc cross-compiler builds
people have had..)

This is why "our clang support requires a very recent version of
clang" is not relevant - distributions won't have old versions of
clang anyway, and even if they do, such distributions will be
gcc-based, so "build the kernel with clang" for that situation is
perhaps an exercise for some intrepid person who is willing to do odd
and unusual things, and might as well build their own clang version
too.

So I really wish people didn't get hung about some "three years ago"
or similar. It's not relevant.

What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
last time.

Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
different distros.

           Linus

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 1:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
> they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
> not.

So this should be our main issue - not how old a compiler is, but how
our compiler version limitations end up possibly making it harder for
users to upgrade.

Of course, one issue there is whether said users would have upgraded
regardless - if you have a very old distribution, how likely are you
to upgrade the kernel at all?

But we do very much want to encourage people to upgrade their kernels,
even if they might be running otherwise fairly old user space. If for
no other reason than that it's good for our kernel coverage testing -
the more different distributions people test a new kernel with, the
better. And some of the less common architectures have their own
issues, with distros possibly not even supporting them any more (if
they ever did - considering all the odd ad-hoc cross-compiler builds
people have had..)

This is why "our clang support requires a very recent version of
clang" is not relevant - distributions won't have old versions of
clang anyway, and even if they do, such distributions will be
gcc-based, so "build the kernel with clang" for that situation is
perhaps an exercise for some intrepid person who is willing to do odd
and unusual things, and might as well build their own clang version
too.

So I really wish people didn't get hung about some "three years ago"
or similar. It's not relevant.

What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
last time.

Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
different distros.

           Linus

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 1:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> The point is, you inconvenience users if you require a compiler version
> they do not already have.  Five years might be fine, but three years is
> not.

So this should be our main issue - not how old a compiler is, but how
our compiler version limitations end up possibly making it harder for
users to upgrade.

Of course, one issue there is whether said users would have upgraded
regardless - if you have a very old distribution, how likely are you
to upgrade the kernel at all?

But we do very much want to encourage people to upgrade their kernels,
even if they might be running otherwise fairly old user space. If for
no other reason than that it's good for our kernel coverage testing -
the more different distributions people test a new kernel with, the
better. And some of the less common architectures have their own
issues, with distros possibly not even supporting them any more (if
they ever did - considering all the odd ad-hoc cross-compiler builds
people have had..)

This is why "our clang support requires a very recent version of
clang" is not relevant - distributions won't have old versions of
clang anyway, and even if they do, such distributions will be
gcc-based, so "build the kernel with clang" for that situation is
perhaps an exercise for some intrepid person who is willing to do odd
and unusual things, and might as well build their own clang version
too.

So I really wish people didn't get hung about some "three years ago"
or similar. It's not relevant.

What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
last time.

Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
different distros.

           Linus

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> last time.
> 
> Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> different distros.

fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.

So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> last time.
> 
> Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> different distros.

fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.

So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> last time.
> 
> Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> different distros.

fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.

So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> last time.
> 
> Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> different distros.

fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.

So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Alexander Dahl]

Hei hei,

Am Sun, May 02, 2021 at 11:30:07PM +0100 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> > too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> > last time.
> > 
> > Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> > list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> > actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> > have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> > different distros.
> 
> fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
> Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
> Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.
> 
> So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
> since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
environment. :-)

This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.

Greets
Alex

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Alexander Dahl]

Hei hei,

Am Sun, May 02, 2021 at 11:30:07PM +0100 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> > too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> > last time.
> > 
> > Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> > list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> > actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> > have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> > different distros.
> 
> fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
> Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
> Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.
> 
> So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
> since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
environment. :-)

This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.

Greets
Alex


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Alexander Dahl]

Hei hei,

Am Sun, May 02, 2021 at 11:30:07PM +0100 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> > too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> > last time.
> > 
> > Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> > list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> > actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> > have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> > different distros.
> 
> fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
> Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
> Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.
> 
> So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
> since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
environment. :-)

This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.

Greets
Alex

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Alexander Dahl]

Hei hei,

Am Sun, May 02, 2021 at 11:30:07PM +0100 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> > too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> > last time.
> > 
> > Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> > list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> > actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> > have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> > different distros.
> 
> fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
> Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
> Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.
> 
> So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
> since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
environment. :-)

This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.

Greets
Alex


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2021-05-03 at 09:34 +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)

In your embedded case, what kernel version do you use?

For older toolchains, unless it's kernel version 5.13+,
it wouldn't matter.

And all the supported architectures have gcc 10.3 available at
http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2021-05-03 at 09:34 +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)

In your embedded case, what kernel version do you use?

For older toolchains, unless it's kernel version 5.13+,
it wouldn't matter.

And all the supported architectures have gcc 10.3 available at
http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2021-05-03 at 09:34 +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)

In your embedded case, what kernel version do you use?

For older toolchains, unless it's kernel version 5.13+,
it wouldn't matter.

And all the supported architectures have gcc 10.3 available at
http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2021-05-03 at 09:34 +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)

In your embedded case, what kernel version do you use?

For older toolchains, unless it's kernel version 5.13+,
it wouldn't matter.

And all the supported architectures have gcc 10.3 available at
http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/



_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
>
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)
>
> This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.

Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
time would be between compiler updates?

One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
in the build environment.

There are two problems I see with this logic:

- Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
  a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
  is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
  Not all bugs are in the kernel.

- The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
  an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
  applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
  is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
  than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
  kernel.

       Arnd

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
>
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)
>
> This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.

Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
time would be between compiler updates?

One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
in the build environment.

There are two problems I see with this logic:

- Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
  a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
  is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
  Not all bugs are in the kernel.

- The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
  an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
  applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
  is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
  than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
  kernel.

       Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
>
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)
>
> This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.

Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
time would be between compiler updates?

One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
in the build environment.

There are two problems I see with this logic:

- Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
  a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
  is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
  Not all bugs are in the kernel.

- The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
  an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
  applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
  is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
  than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
  kernel.

       Arnd

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
>
> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> environment. :-)
>
> This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.

Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
time would be between compiler updates?

One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
in the build environment.

There are two problems I see with this logic:

- Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
  a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
  is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
  Not all bugs are in the kernel.

- The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
  an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
  applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
  is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
  than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
  kernel.

       Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

RE: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[David Laight]

From: Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: 03 May 2021 10:25
...
> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.

If you are building programs for release to customers who might
be running then on old distributions then you need a system with
the original userspace headers and almost certainly a similar
vintage compiler.
Never mind RHEL7 we have customers running RHEL6.
(We've managed to get everyone off RHEL5.)
So the build machine is running a 10+ year old distro.

I did try to build on a newer system (only 5 years old)
but the complete fubar of memcpy() makes it impossible
to compile C programs that will run on an older libc.
And don't even mention C++, the 'character traits' is just
plain horrid - enough to make me want to remove every
reference to CString from the small amount of C++ we have.

To quote our makefile:
# C++ is fighting back.
# I'd like to be able to compile on a 'new' system and still be able to run
# the binaries on RHEL 6 (2.6.32 kernel 2011 era libraries).
# But even linking libstdc++ static still leaves
# an undefined C++ symbol that the dynamic loader barfs on.
# The static libstdc++ also references memcpy@GLIBC_2.14 - but that can be
# 'solved' by adding an extra .so that defines the symbol (and calls memmove()).
# I've also tried pulling a single .o out of libstc++.a. This might work if
# the .o is small and self contained.
#
# For now we statically link libstc++ and continue to build on an old system.
C++LDLIBS := -Wl,-Bstatic -lstdc++ -Wl,-Bdynamic

It would be nice to be able to build current kernels (for local
use) on the 'new' system - but gcc is already too old.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

RE: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[David Laight]

From: Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: 03 May 2021 10:25
...
> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.

If you are building programs for release to customers who might
be running then on old distributions then you need a system with
the original userspace headers and almost certainly a similar
vintage compiler.
Never mind RHEL7 we have customers running RHEL6.
(We've managed to get everyone off RHEL5.)
So the build machine is running a 10+ year old distro.

I did try to build on a newer system (only 5 years old)
but the complete fubar of memcpy() makes it impossible
to compile C programs that will run on an older libc.
And don't even mention C++, the 'character traits' is just
plain horrid - enough to make me want to remove every
reference to CString from the small amount of C++ we have.

To quote our makefile:
# C++ is fighting back.
# I'd like to be able to compile on a 'new' system and still be able to run
# the binaries on RHEL 6 (2.6.32 kernel 2011 era libraries).
# But even linking libstdc++ static still leaves
# an undefined C++ symbol that the dynamic loader barfs on.
# The static libstdc++ also references memcpy@GLIBC_2.14 - but that can be
# 'solved' by adding an extra .so that defines the symbol (and calls memmove()).
# I've also tried pulling a single .o out of libstc++.a. This might work if
# the .o is small and self contained.
#
# For now we statically link libstc++ and continue to build on an old system.
C++LDLIBS := -Wl,-Bstatic -lstdc++ -Wl,-Bdynamic

It would be nice to be able to build current kernels (for local
use) on the 'new' system - but gcc is already too old.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RE: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[David Laight]

From: Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: 03 May 2021 10:25
...
> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.

If you are building programs for release to customers who might
be running then on old distributions then you need a system with
the original userspace headers and almost certainly a similar
vintage compiler.
Never mind RHEL7 we have customers running RHEL6.
(We've managed to get everyone off RHEL5.)
So the build machine is running a 10+ year old distro.

I did try to build on a newer system (only 5 years old)
but the complete fubar of memcpy() makes it impossible
to compile C programs that will run on an older libc.
And don't even mention C++, the 'character traits' is just
plain horrid - enough to make me want to remove every
reference to CString from the small amount of C++ we have.

To quote our makefile:
# C++ is fighting back.
# I'd like to be able to compile on a 'new' system and still be able to run
# the binaries on RHEL 6 (2.6.32 kernel 2011 era libraries).
# But even linking libstdc++ static still leaves
# an undefined C++ symbol that the dynamic loader barfs on.
# The static libstdc++ also references memcpy@GLIBC_2.14 - but that can be
# 'solved' by adding an extra .so that defines the symbol (and calls memmove()).
# I've also tried pulling a single .o out of libstc++.a. This might work if
# the .o is small and self contained.
#
# For now we statically link libstc++ and continue to build on an old system.
C++LDLIBS := -Wl,-Bstatic -lstdc++ -Wl,-Bdynamic

It would be nice to be able to build current kernels (for local
use) on the 'new' system - but gcc is already too old.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 PM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> It would be nice to be able to build current kernels (for local
> use) on the 'new' system - but gcc is already too old.

I have seen such environments too... However, for the kernel in
particular, you could install a newer GCC in the 'new' machine (just
for the kernel builds) or do your kernel builds in a different machine
-- a 'new' 'new' one :)

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 PM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> It would be nice to be able to build current kernels (for local
> use) on the 'new' system - but gcc is already too old.

I have seen such environments too... However, for the kernel in
particular, you could install a newer GCC in the 'new' machine (just
for the kernel builds) or do your kernel builds in a different machine
-- a 'new' 'new' one :)

Cheers,
Miguel

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 PM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> It would be nice to be able to build current kernels (for local
> use) on the 'new' system - but gcc is already too old.

I have seen such environments too... However, for the kernel in
particular, you could install a newer GCC in the 'new' machine (just
for the kernel builds) or do your kernel builds in a different machine
-- a 'new' 'new' one :)

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 PM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> It would be nice to be able to build current kernels (for local
> use) on the 'new' system - but gcc is already too old.

I have seen such environments too... However, for the kernel in
particular, you could install a newer GCC in the 'new' machine (just
for the kernel builds) or do your kernel builds in a different machine
-- a 'new' 'new' one :)

Cheers,
Miguel

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Alexander Dahl]

Hello Arnd,

Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > environment. :-)
> >
> > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
> 
> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> time would be between compiler updates?

One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
This is time consuming and expensive. 

Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
which would require recertification, while you could argue just
updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
again, does not require the whole testing process again. 

Thin ice, I know.

> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.

One problem we actually ran into in BSPs like that (we build with
ptxdist, however build system doesn't matter here, it could as well
have been buildroot etc.) was things* failing to build with newer
compilers, things we could not or did not want to fix, so staying with
an older toolchain was the obvious choice. 

*Things as in bootloaders for an armv5 platform.

> There are two problems I see with this logic:
> 
> - Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
>   a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
>   is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
>   Not all bugs are in the kernel.

Agreed.

> - The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
>   an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
>   applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
>   is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
>   than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
>   kernel.

What we actually did: building recent userspace and kernel with older
toolchains, because bootloader. I know, there are several
possibilities to solve this kind of lock:

- built bootloader with different compiler
- update bootloader
- …

As said before, this is no problem for me now, I can work around it,
but to give an idea what could keep people on older toolchains.

Greets
Alex

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Alexander Dahl]

Hello Arnd,

Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > environment. :-)
> >
> > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
> 
> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> time would be between compiler updates?

One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
This is time consuming and expensive. 

Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
which would require recertification, while you could argue just
updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
again, does not require the whole testing process again. 

Thin ice, I know.

> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.

One problem we actually ran into in BSPs like that (we build with
ptxdist, however build system doesn't matter here, it could as well
have been buildroot etc.) was things* failing to build with newer
compilers, things we could not or did not want to fix, so staying with
an older toolchain was the obvious choice. 

*Things as in bootloaders for an armv5 platform.

> There are two problems I see with this logic:
> 
> - Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
>   a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
>   is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
>   Not all bugs are in the kernel.

Agreed.

> - The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
>   an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
>   applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
>   is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
>   than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
>   kernel.

What we actually did: building recent userspace and kernel with older
toolchains, because bootloader. I know, there are several
possibilities to solve this kind of lock:

- built bootloader with different compiler
- update bootloader
- …

As said before, this is no problem for me now, I can work around it,
but to give an idea what could keep people on older toolchains.

Greets
Alex


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Alexander Dahl]

Hello Arnd,

Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > environment. :-)
> >
> > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
> 
> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> time would be between compiler updates?

One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
This is time consuming and expensive. 

Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
which would require recertification, while you could argue just
updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
again, does not require the whole testing process again. 

Thin ice, I know.

> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.

One problem we actually ran into in BSPs like that (we build with
ptxdist, however build system doesn't matter here, it could as well
have been buildroot etc.) was things* failing to build with newer
compilers, things we could not or did not want to fix, so staying with
an older toolchain was the obvious choice. 

*Things as in bootloaders for an armv5 platform.

> There are two problems I see with this logic:
> 
> - Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
>   a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
>   is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
>   Not all bugs are in the kernel.

Agreed.

> - The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
>   an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
>   applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
>   is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
>   than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
>   kernel.

What we actually did: building recent userspace and kernel with older
toolchains, because bootloader. I know, there are several
possibilities to solve this kind of lock:

- built bootloader with different compiler
- update bootloader
- …

As said before, this is no problem for me now, I can work around it,
but to give an idea what could keep people on older toolchains.

Greets
Alex

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Alexander Dahl]

Hello Arnd,

Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > environment. :-)
> >
> > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
> 
> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> time would be between compiler updates?

One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
This is time consuming and expensive. 

Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
which would require recertification, while you could argue just
updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
again, does not require the whole testing process again. 

Thin ice, I know.

> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.

One problem we actually ran into in BSPs like that (we build with
ptxdist, however build system doesn't matter here, it could as well
have been buildroot etc.) was things* failing to build with newer
compilers, things we could not or did not want to fix, so staying with
an older toolchain was the obvious choice. 

*Things as in bootloaders for an armv5 platform.

> There are two problems I see with this logic:
> 
> - Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
>   a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
>   is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
>   Not all bugs are in the kernel.

Agreed.

> - The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
>   an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
>   applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
>   is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
>   than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
>   kernel.

What we actually did: building recent userspace and kernel with older
toolchains, because bootloader. I know, there are several
possibilities to solve this kind of lock:

- built bootloader with different compiler
- update bootloader
- …

As said before, this is no problem for me now, I can work around it,
but to give an idea what could keep people on older toolchains.

Greets
Alex


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 04/05/2021 à 07:30, Alexander Dahl a écrit :
> Hello Arnd,
> 
> Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
>> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
>>> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
>>> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
>>> environment. :-)
>>>
>>> This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
>>
>> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
>> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
>> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
>> time would be between compiler updates?
> 
> One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
> like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
> devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
> This is time consuming and expensive.
> 
> Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
> which would require recertification, while you could argue just
> updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
> again, does not require the whole testing process again.

Not sure to follow you.

Our company provides systems for Air Trafic Control, so we have the same kind of assurance quality 
process, but then I can't understand why you would need to upgrade your kernel at all.

Today our system is based on GCC 5 and Kernel 4.14. At the time being we are using GCC 5.5 (Latest 
GCC 5) and kernel 4.14.232 (Latest 4.14.y). Kernel 4.14 is maintained until 2024.

The day we do an upgrade, we upgrade everything including the tool chain then we go for another 6 
years without major changes/re-qualification, because we can't afford a new qualitication every now 
and then.


So really, I can't see your approach.

Christophe

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 04/05/2021 à 07:30, Alexander Dahl a écrit :
> Hello Arnd,
> 
> Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
>> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
>>> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
>>> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
>>> environment. :-)
>>>
>>> This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
>>
>> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
>> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
>> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
>> time would be between compiler updates?
> 
> One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
> like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
> devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
> This is time consuming and expensive.
> 
> Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
> which would require recertification, while you could argue just
> updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
> again, does not require the whole testing process again.

Not sure to follow you.

Our company provides systems for Air Trafic Control, so we have the same kind of assurance quality 
process, but then I can't understand why you would need to upgrade your kernel at all.

Today our system is based on GCC 5 and Kernel 4.14. At the time being we are using GCC 5.5 (Latest 
GCC 5) and kernel 4.14.232 (Latest 4.14.y). Kernel 4.14 is maintained until 2024.

The day we do an upgrade, we upgrade everything including the tool chain then we go for another 6 
years without major changes/re-qualification, because we can't afford a new qualitication every now 
and then.


So really, I can't see your approach.

Christophe

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 04/05/2021 à 07:30, Alexander Dahl a écrit :
> Hello Arnd,
> 
> Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
>> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
>>> aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
>>> toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
>>> environment. :-)
>>>
>>> This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
>>
>> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
>> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
>> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
>> time would be between compiler updates?
> 
> One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
> like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
> devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
> This is time consuming and expensive.
> 
> Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
> which would require recertification, while you could argue just
> updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
> again, does not require the whole testing process again.

Not sure to follow you.

Our company provides systems for Air Trafic Control, so we have the same kind of assurance quality 
process, but then I can't understand why you would need to upgrade your kernel at all.

Today our system is based on GCC 5 and Kernel 4.14. At the time being we are using GCC 5.5 (Latest 
GCC 5) and kernel 4.14.232 (Latest 4.14.y). Kernel 4.14 is maintained until 2024.

The day we do an upgrade, we upgrade everything including the tool chain then we go for another 6 
years without major changes/re-qualification, because we can't afford a new qualitication every now 
and then.


So really, I can't see your approach.

Christophe

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 7:31 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > > environment. :-)
> > >
> > > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
> >
> > Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> > what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> > on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> > time would be between compiler updates?
>
> One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
> like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
> devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
> This is time consuming and expensive.
>
> Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
> which would require recertification, while you could argue just
> updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
> again, does not require the whole testing process again.
>
> Thin ice, I know.

As Christophe said, I don't think this is a valid example. I agree that
if rebuilding everything with a new toolchain requires certification, you
shouldn't rebuild everything.

If replacing the kernel does not require recertification for your
specific system, that is fine, but that does not mean the new kernel
should be built with an outdated toolchain. If the certification
allows replacing linux-3.18 with linux-5.10 but doesn't allow building
the kernel with a different toolchain compared to the rest, then
the point of the certification is rather questionable.

Do you know specific certifications that would require you to
do this?

> One problem we actually ran into in BSPs like that (we build with
> ptxdist, however build system doesn't matter here, it could as well
> have been buildroot etc.) was things* failing to build with newer
> compilers, things we could not or did not want to fix, so staying with
> an older toolchain was the obvious choice.
>
> *Things as in bootloaders for an armv5 platform.
...
>
> What we actually did: building recent userspace and kernel with older
> toolchains, because bootloader.

It sounds like you are trying to make an argument in favour of
deprecating old toolchains *earlier* in new kernels ;-)

If we simply made it impossible to have users build kernels with
the same old toolchain that is needed for building the old bootloader
or the old user space, it sounds like more people would do the
right thing and build the updated kernels with a better tested
toolchain, or update their bootloader as well. The only downside
is that some users would choose to remain on the older kernels,
so it shouldn't be too aggressive either.

         Arnd

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 7:31 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > > environment. :-)
> > >
> > > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
> >
> > Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> > what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> > on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> > time would be between compiler updates?
>
> One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
> like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
> devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
> This is time consuming and expensive.
>
> Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
> which would require recertification, while you could argue just
> updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
> again, does not require the whole testing process again.
>
> Thin ice, I know.

As Christophe said, I don't think this is a valid example. I agree that
if rebuilding everything with a new toolchain requires certification, you
shouldn't rebuild everything.

If replacing the kernel does not require recertification for your
specific system, that is fine, but that does not mean the new kernel
should be built with an outdated toolchain. If the certification
allows replacing linux-3.18 with linux-5.10 but doesn't allow building
the kernel with a different toolchain compared to the rest, then
the point of the certification is rather questionable.

Do you know specific certifications that would require you to
do this?

> One problem we actually ran into in BSPs like that (we build with
> ptxdist, however build system doesn't matter here, it could as well
> have been buildroot etc.) was things* failing to build with newer
> compilers, things we could not or did not want to fix, so staying with
> an older toolchain was the obvious choice.
>
> *Things as in bootloaders for an armv5 platform.
...
>
> What we actually did: building recent userspace and kernel with older
> toolchains, because bootloader.

It sounds like you are trying to make an argument in favour of
deprecating old toolchains *earlier* in new kernels ;-)

If we simply made it impossible to have users build kernels with
the same old toolchain that is needed for building the old bootloader
or the old user space, it sounds like more people would do the
right thing and build the updated kernels with a better tested
toolchain, or update their bootloader as well. The only downside
is that some users would choose to remain on the older kernels,
so it shouldn't be too aggressive either.

         Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 7:31 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > > environment. :-)
> > >
> > > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
> >
> > Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> > what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> > on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> > time would be between compiler updates?
>
> One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
> like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
> devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
> This is time consuming and expensive.
>
> Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
> which would require recertification, while you could argue just
> updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
> again, does not require the whole testing process again.
>
> Thin ice, I know.

As Christophe said, I don't think this is a valid example. I agree that
if rebuilding everything with a new toolchain requires certification, you
shouldn't rebuild everything.

If replacing the kernel does not require recertification for your
specific system, that is fine, but that does not mean the new kernel
should be built with an outdated toolchain. If the certification
allows replacing linux-3.18 with linux-5.10 but doesn't allow building
the kernel with a different toolchain compared to the rest, then
the point of the certification is rather questionable.

Do you know specific certifications that would require you to
do this?

> One problem we actually ran into in BSPs like that (we build with
> ptxdist, however build system doesn't matter here, it could as well
> have been buildroot etc.) was things* failing to build with newer
> compilers, things we could not or did not want to fix, so staying with
> an older toolchain was the obvious choice.
>
> *Things as in bootloaders for an armv5 platform.
...
>
> What we actually did: building recent userspace and kernel with older
> toolchains, because bootloader.

It sounds like you are trying to make an argument in favour of
deprecating old toolchains *earlier* in new kernels ;-)

If we simply made it impossible to have users build kernels with
the same old toolchain that is needed for building the old bootloader
or the old user space, it sounds like more people would do the
right thing and build the updated kernels with a better tested
toolchain, or update their bootloader as well. The only downside
is that some users would choose to remain on the older kernels,
so it shouldn't be too aggressive either.

         Arnd

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 7:31 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > > environment. :-)
> > >
> > > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
> >
> > Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> > what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> > on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> > time would be between compiler updates?
>
> One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications
> like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your
> devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites.
> This is time consuming and expensive.
>
> Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change
> which would require recertification, while you could argue just
> updating a single component like the kernel and building everything
> again, does not require the whole testing process again.
>
> Thin ice, I know.

As Christophe said, I don't think this is a valid example. I agree that
if rebuilding everything with a new toolchain requires certification, you
shouldn't rebuild everything.

If replacing the kernel does not require recertification for your
specific system, that is fine, but that does not mean the new kernel
should be built with an outdated toolchain. If the certification
allows replacing linux-3.18 with linux-5.10 but doesn't allow building
the kernel with a different toolchain compared to the rest, then
the point of the certification is rather questionable.

Do you know specific certifications that would require you to
do this?

> One problem we actually ran into in BSPs like that (we build with
> ptxdist, however build system doesn't matter here, it could as well
> have been buildroot etc.) was things* failing to build with newer
> compilers, things we could not or did not want to fix, so staying with
> an older toolchain was the obvious choice.
>
> *Things as in bootloaders for an armv5 platform.
...
>
> What we actually did: building recent userspace and kernel with older
> toolchains, because bootloader.

It sounds like you are trying to make an argument in favour of
deprecating old toolchains *earlier* in new kernels ;-)

If we simply made it impossible to have users build kernels with
the same old toolchain that is needed for building the old bootloader
or the old user space, it sounds like more people would do the
right thing and build the updated kernels with a better tested
toolchain, or update their bootloader as well. The only downside
is that some users would choose to remain on the older kernels,
so it shouldn't be too aggressive either.

         Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:29 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > environment. :-)
> >
> > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
>
> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> time would be between compiler updates?
>
> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.
>
> There are two problems I see with this logic:
>
> - Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
>   a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
>   is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
>   Not all bugs are in the kernel.
>
> - The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
>   an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
>   applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
>   is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
>   than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
>   kernel.

I understand that you are talking about embedded, but it you stuck
with a distro (esp. LTS one, like CentOS 7.x), you have gcc 4.8.5
there for everything, but they have got security updates. Seems if you
are with a distro you have to stick with its kernel with all pros and
cons of such an approach.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:29 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > environment. :-)
> >
> > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
>
> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> time would be between compiler updates?
>
> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.
>
> There are two problems I see with this logic:
>
> - Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
>   a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
>   is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
>   Not all bugs are in the kernel.
>
> - The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
>   an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
>   applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
>   is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
>   than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
>   kernel.

I understand that you are talking about embedded, but it you stuck
with a distro (esp. LTS one, like CentOS 7.x), you have gcc 4.8.5
there for everything, but they have got security updates. Seems if you
are with a distro you have to stick with its kernel with all pros and
cons of such an approach.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:29 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > environment. :-)
> >
> > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
>
> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> time would be between compiler updates?
>
> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.
>
> There are two problems I see with this logic:
>
> - Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
>   a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
>   is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
>   Not all bugs are in the kernel.
>
> - The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
>   an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
>   applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
>   is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
>   than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
>   kernel.

I understand that you are talking about embedded, but it you stuck
with a distro (esp. LTS one, like CentOS 7.x), you have gcc 4.8.5
there for everything, but they have got security updates. Seems if you
are with a distro you have to stick with its kernel with all pros and
cons of such an approach.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:29 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com> wrote:
> >
> > Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you
> > aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross
> > toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial
> > environment. :-)
> >
> > This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.
>
> Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of,
> what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel
> on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum
> time would be between compiler updates?
>
> One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and
> kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot,
> openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources
> of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler
> then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default
> in the build environment.
>
> There are two problems I see with this logic:
>
> - Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course
>   a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that
>   is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure.
>   Not all bugs are in the kernel.
>
> - The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with
>   an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also
>   applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler
>   is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs
>   than using the compiler that other developers used to test that
>   kernel.

I understand that you are talking about embedded, but it you stuck
with a distro (esp. LTS one, like CentOS 7.x), you have gcc 4.8.5
there for everything, but they have got security updates. Seems if you
are with a distro you have to stick with its kernel with all pros and
cons of such an approach.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:32 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> > too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> > last time.
> >
> > Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> > list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> > actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> > have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> > different distros.
>
> fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
> Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
> Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.
>
> So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
> since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

I would argue that we shouldn't care about distros that are officially
end-of-life. Jessie support ended last July according to the official
Debian pages at https://wiki.debian.org/LTS.

It's a little harder for distros that are still officially supported, like the
RHEL7 case that Linus mentioned, Debian Stretch (gcc-6.3),
Slackware 14.2 (gcc-5.3), or Ubuntu 18.04 (gcc-7.3). For any of
these you could make the argument one way or the other: either
say we care as long as the distro cares, or the users that want
to build their own kernels can be reasonably expected to either
upgrade their distro or install a newer compiler manually.

Looking at the Debian case specifically, I see these numbers
from https://popcon.debian.org/:

testing/unstable: 16730
buster/stable: 113881
stretch/oldstable: 39147
jessie/oldoldstable: 19286

Assuming the numbers of users that installed popcon are
proportional to the actual number of users, that's still a large
chunk of people running stretch or older. Presumably,
these users are actually less likely to build their own kernels.

       Arnd

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:32 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> > too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> > last time.
> >
> > Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> > list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> > actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> > have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> > different distros.
>
> fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
> Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
> Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.
>
> So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
> since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

I would argue that we shouldn't care about distros that are officially
end-of-life. Jessie support ended last July according to the official
Debian pages at https://wiki.debian.org/LTS.

It's a little harder for distros that are still officially supported, like the
RHEL7 case that Linus mentioned, Debian Stretch (gcc-6.3),
Slackware 14.2 (gcc-5.3), or Ubuntu 18.04 (gcc-7.3). For any of
these you could make the argument one way or the other: either
say we care as long as the distro cares, or the users that want
to build their own kernels can be reasonably expected to either
upgrade their distro or install a newer compiler manually.

Looking at the Debian case specifically, I see these numbers
from https://popcon.debian.org/:

testing/unstable: 16730
buster/stable: 113881
stretch/oldstable: 39147
jessie/oldoldstable: 19286

Assuming the numbers of users that installed popcon are
proportional to the actual number of users, that's still a large
chunk of people running stretch or older. Presumably,
these users are actually less likely to build their own kernels.

       Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:32 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> > too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> > last time.
> >
> > Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> > list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> > actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> > have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> > different distros.
>
> fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
> Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
> Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.
>
> So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
> since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

I would argue that we shouldn't care about distros that are officially
end-of-life. Jessie support ended last July according to the official
Debian pages at https://wiki.debian.org/LTS.

It's a little harder for distros that are still officially supported, like the
RHEL7 case that Linus mentioned, Debian Stretch (gcc-6.3),
Slackware 14.2 (gcc-5.3), or Ubuntu 18.04 (gcc-7.3). For any of
these you could make the argument one way or the other: either
say we care as long as the distro cares, or the users that want
to build their own kernels can be reasonably expected to either
upgrade their distro or install a newer compiler manually.

Looking at the Debian case specifically, I see these numbers
from https://popcon.debian.org/:

testing/unstable: 16730
buster/stable: 113881
stretch/oldstable: 39147
jessie/oldoldstable: 19286

Assuming the numbers of users that installed popcon are
proportional to the actual number of users, that's still a large
chunk of people running stretch or older. Presumably,
these users are actually less likely to build their own kernels.

       Arnd

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:32 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is relevant is what version of gcc various distributions actually
> > have reasonably easily available, and how old and relevant the
> > distributions are. We did decide that (just as an example) RHEL 7 was
> > too old to worry about when we updated the gcc version requirement
> > last time.
> >
> > Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> > list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> > actually _maintains_ such a list. It would be perhaps interesting to
> > have some way to check what compiler versions are being offered by
> > different distros.
>
> fwiw, Debian 9 aka Stretch released June 2017 had gcc 6.3
> Debian 10 aka Buster released June 2019 had gcc 7.4 *and* 8.3.
> Debian 8 aka Jessie had gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2.
>
> So do we care about people who haven't bothered to upgrade userspace
> since 2017?  If so, we can't go past 4.9.

I would argue that we shouldn't care about distros that are officially
end-of-life. Jessie support ended last July according to the official
Debian pages at https://wiki.debian.org/LTS.

It's a little harder for distros that are still officially supported, like the
RHEL7 case that Linus mentioned, Debian Stretch (gcc-6.3),
Slackware 14.2 (gcc-5.3), or Ubuntu 18.04 (gcc-7.3). For any of
these you could make the argument one way or the other: either
say we care as long as the distro cares, or the users that want
to build their own kernels can be reasonably expected to either
upgrade their distro or install a newer compiler manually.

Looking at the Debian case specifically, I see these numbers
from https://popcon.debian.org/:

testing/unstable: 16730
buster/stable: 113881
stretch/oldstable: 39147
jessie/oldoldstable: 19286

Assuming the numbers of users that installed popcon are
proportional to the actual number of users, that's still a large
chunk of people running stretch or older. Presumably,
these users are actually less likely to build their own kernels.

       Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> actually _maintains_ such a list.

Distrowatch does. I used it for checking. But you need to check it per
distro. For Debian it would be here:

https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> actually _maintains_ such a list.

Distrowatch does. I used it for checking. But you need to check it per
distro. For Debian it would be here:

https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> actually _maintains_ such a list.

Distrowatch does. I used it for checking. But you need to check it per
distro. For Debian it would be here:

https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:08:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Last year, Arnd and Kirill (maybe others were involved too) made a
> list of distros and older gcc versions. But I don't think anybody
> actually _maintains_ such a list.

Distrowatch does. I used it for checking. But you need to check it per
distro. For Debian it would be here:

https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean?

? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean?

? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h




_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean?

? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean?

? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h




_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
> > > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> > 
> > I have no idea what you mean?
> 
> ? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h

Ah, you mean
#pragma GCC diagnostic
(which has existed since GCC 4.2).  Does anything in this __diag stuff
require GCC 8?  Other than that this is hardcoded here :-)


Segher

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
> > > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> > 
> > I have no idea what you mean?
> 
> ? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h

Ah, you mean
#pragma GCC diagnostic
(which has existed since GCC 4.2).  Does anything in this __diag stuff
require GCC 8?  Other than that this is hardcoded here :-)


Segher

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
> > > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> > 
> > I have no idea what you mean?
> 
> ? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h

Ah, you mean
#pragma GCC diagnostic
(which has existed since GCC 4.2).  Does anything in this __diag stuff
require GCC 8?  Other than that this is hardcoded here :-)


Segher

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
> > > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> > 
> > I have no idea what you mean?
> 
> ? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h

Ah, you mean
#pragma GCC diagnostic
(which has existed since GCC 4.2).  Does anything in this __diag stuff
require GCC 8?  Other than that this is hardcoded here :-)


Segher

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:44 AM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > []
> > > > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what you mean?
> >
> > ? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h
>
> Ah, you mean
> #pragma GCC diagnostic
> (which has existed since GCC 4.2).  Does anything in this __diag stuff
> require GCC 8?  Other than that this is hardcoded here :-)

The '8' was just a kernel thing, we made it configurable to have version
specific warnings, and I have a header file that adds these macros
for all supported compilers, but the version that is in mainline only does
it for gcc-8 or later.

Early compilers only supported "#pragma GCC diagnostic", but I think
even gcc-4.6 supported the _Pragma() syntax that lets you do it inside
of a macro.

It's something we should improve with plumbing on top, e.g. I want
a macro that lets you locally turn off both -Woverride-init on gcc
and -Winitializer-overrides on clang. It's not a reason to mandate
a newer compiler though.

        Arnd

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:44 AM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > []
> > > > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what you mean?
> >
> > ? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h
>
> Ah, you mean
> #pragma GCC diagnostic
> (which has existed since GCC 4.2).  Does anything in this __diag stuff
> require GCC 8?  Other than that this is hardcoded here :-)

The '8' was just a kernel thing, we made it configurable to have version
specific warnings, and I have a header file that adds these macros
for all supported compilers, but the version that is in mainline only does
it for gcc-8 or later.

Early compilers only supported "#pragma GCC diagnostic", but I think
even gcc-4.6 supported the _Pragma() syntax that lets you do it inside
of a macro.

It's something we should improve with plumbing on top, e.g. I want
a macro that lets you locally turn off both -Woverride-init on gcc
and -Winitializer-overrides on clang. It's not a reason to mandate
a newer compiler though.

        Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:44 AM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > []
> > > > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what you mean?
> >
> > ? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h
>
> Ah, you mean
> #pragma GCC diagnostic
> (which has existed since GCC 4.2).  Does anything in this __diag stuff
> require GCC 8?  Other than that this is hardcoded here :-)

The '8' was just a kernel thing, we made it configurable to have version
specific warnings, and I have a header file that adds these macros
for all supported compilers, but the version that is in mainline only does
it for gcc-8 or later.

Early compilers only supported "#pragma GCC diagnostic", but I think
even gcc-4.6 supported the _Pragma() syntax that lets you do it inside
of a macro.

It's something we should improve with plumbing on top, e.g. I want
a macro that lets you locally turn off both -Woverride-init on gcc
and -Winitializer-overrides on clang. It's not a reason to mandate
a newer compiler though.

        Arnd

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:44 AM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 02:23:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 15:32 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 01:00:28PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > []
> > > > Perhaps 8 might be best as that has a __diag warning control mechanism.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what you mean?
> >
> > ? read the last bit of compiler-gcc.h
>
> Ah, you mean
> #pragma GCC diagnostic
> (which has existed since GCC 4.2).  Does anything in this __diag stuff
> require GCC 8?  Other than that this is hardcoded here :-)

The '8' was just a kernel thing, we made it configurable to have version
specific warnings, and I have a header file that adds these macros
for all supported compilers, but the version that is in mainline only does
it for gcc-8 or later.

Early compilers only supported "#pragma GCC diagnostic", but I think
even gcc-4.6 supported the _Pragma() syntax that lets you do it inside
of a macro.

It's something we should improve with plumbing on top, e.g. I want
a macro that lets you locally turn off both -Woverride-init on gcc
and -Winitializer-overrides on clang. It's not a reason to mandate
a newer compiler though.

        Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Ben Dooks]

On 02/05/2021 03:41, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
>>> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
>>
>> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
>> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.
> 
> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html

Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
gcc releases :(


-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Ben Dooks]

On 02/05/2021 03:41, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
>>> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
>>
>> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
>> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.
> 
> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html

Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
gcc releases :(


-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Ben Dooks]

On 02/05/2021 03:41, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
>>> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
>>
>> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
>> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.
> 
> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html

Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
gcc releases :(


-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Ben Dooks]

On 02/05/2021 03:41, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-05-01 at 17:52 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 5:17 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> More cleanups will be possible as follow-up patches, but this one must
>>> be agreed and applied to the mainline first.
>>
>> +1 This will allow me to remove the __has_attribute hack in
>> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h.
> 
> Why not raise the minimum gcc compiler version even higher?
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html

Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
gcc releases :(


-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> gcc releases :(

In those scenarios, why do you need to build mainline? Aren't your
customers using longterm or frozen kernels? If they are paying for
certified GCC images, aren't they already paying for supported kernel
images from some vendor too?

I understand where you are coming from -- I have also dealt with
projects/machines running ancient, unsupported software/toolchains for
various reasons; but nobody expected upstream (and in particular the
mainline kernel source) to support them. In the cases I experienced,
those use cases require not touching anything at all, and when the
time came of doing so, everything would be updated at once,
re-certified/validated as needed and frozen again.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> gcc releases :(

In those scenarios, why do you need to build mainline? Aren't your
customers using longterm or frozen kernels? If they are paying for
certified GCC images, aren't they already paying for supported kernel
images from some vendor too?

I understand where you are coming from -- I have also dealt with
projects/machines running ancient, unsupported software/toolchains for
various reasons; but nobody expected upstream (and in particular the
mainline kernel source) to support them. In the cases I experienced,
those use cases require not touching anything at all, and when the
time came of doing so, everything would be updated at once,
re-certified/validated as needed and frozen again.

Cheers,
Miguel

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> gcc releases :(

In those scenarios, why do you need to build mainline? Aren't your
customers using longterm or frozen kernels? If they are paying for
certified GCC images, aren't they already paying for supported kernel
images from some vendor too?

I understand where you are coming from -- I have also dealt with
projects/machines running ancient, unsupported software/toolchains for
various reasons; but nobody expected upstream (and in particular the
mainline kernel source) to support them. In the cases I experienced,
those use cases require not touching anything at all, and when the
time came of doing so, everything would be updated at once,
re-certified/validated as needed and frozen again.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> gcc releases :(

In those scenarios, why do you need to build mainline? Aren't your
customers using longterm or frozen kernels? If they are paying for
certified GCC images, aren't they already paying for supported kernel
images from some vendor too?

I understand where you are coming from -- I have also dealt with
projects/machines running ancient, unsupported software/toolchains for
various reasons; but nobody expected upstream (and in particular the
mainline kernel source) to support them. In the cases I experienced,
those use cases require not touching anything at all, and when the
time came of doing so, everything would be updated at once,
re-certified/validated as needed and frozen again.

Cheers,
Miguel

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Michal Suchánek]

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:38:32AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> > their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> > blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> > gcc releases :(
> 
> In those scenarios, why do you need to build mainline? Aren't your
> customers using longterm or frozen kernels? If they are paying for
> certified GCC images, aren't they already paying for supported kernel
> images from some vendor too?
> 
> I understand where you are coming from -- I have also dealt with
> projects/machines running ancient, unsupported software/toolchains for
> various reasons; but nobody expected upstream (and in particular the
> mainline kernel source) to support them. In the cases I experienced,
> those use cases require not touching anything at all, and when the
> time came of doing so, everything would be updated at once,
> re-certified/validated as needed and frozen again.

Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
answer.

Sure, throwing out old compiler versions that are known to cause
problems makes sense. Updating to latest just because much less so.

One of the selling point of C in general and gcc in particular is
stability. If we need the latest compiler we can as well rewrite the
kernel in Rust which has a required update cycle of a few months.

Because some mainline kernel features rely on bleeding edge tools I end
up building mainline with current tools anyway but if you do not need
BTF or whatever other latest gimmick older toolchains should do.

Thanks

Michal

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Michal Suchánek]

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:38:32AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> > their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> > blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> > gcc releases :(
> 
> In those scenarios, why do you need to build mainline? Aren't your
> customers using longterm or frozen kernels? If they are paying for
> certified GCC images, aren't they already paying for supported kernel
> images from some vendor too?
> 
> I understand where you are coming from -- I have also dealt with
> projects/machines running ancient, unsupported software/toolchains for
> various reasons; but nobody expected upstream (and in particular the
> mainline kernel source) to support them. In the cases I experienced,
> those use cases require not touching anything at all, and when the
> time came of doing so, everything would be updated at once,
> re-certified/validated as needed and frozen again.

Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
answer.

Sure, throwing out old compiler versions that are known to cause
problems makes sense. Updating to latest just because much less so.

One of the selling point of C in general and gcc in particular is
stability. If we need the latest compiler we can as well rewrite the
kernel in Rust which has a required update cycle of a few months.

Because some mainline kernel features rely on bleeding edge tools I end
up building mainline with current tools anyway but if you do not need
BTF or whatever other latest gimmick older toolchains should do.

Thanks

Michal

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Michal Suchánek]

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:38:32AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> > their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> > blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> > gcc releases :(
> 
> In those scenarios, why do you need to build mainline? Aren't your
> customers using longterm or frozen kernels? If they are paying for
> certified GCC images, aren't they already paying for supported kernel
> images from some vendor too?
> 
> I understand where you are coming from -- I have also dealt with
> projects/machines running ancient, unsupported software/toolchains for
> various reasons; but nobody expected upstream (and in particular the
> mainline kernel source) to support them. In the cases I experienced,
> those use cases require not touching anything at all, and when the
> time came of doing so, everything would be updated at once,
> re-certified/validated as needed and frozen again.

Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
answer.

Sure, throwing out old compiler versions that are known to cause
problems makes sense. Updating to latest just because much less so.

One of the selling point of C in general and gcc in particular is
stability. If we need the latest compiler we can as well rewrite the
kernel in Rust which has a required update cycle of a few months.

Because some mainline kernel features rely on bleeding edge tools I end
up building mainline with current tools anyway but if you do not need
BTF or whatever other latest gimmick older toolchains should do.

Thanks

Michal

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Michal Suchánek]

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:38:32AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Some of us are a bit stuck as either customer refuses to upgrade
> > their build infrastructure or has paid for some old but safety
> > blessed version of gcc. These often lag years behind the recent
> > gcc releases :(
> 
> In those scenarios, why do you need to build mainline? Aren't your
> customers using longterm or frozen kernels? If they are paying for
> certified GCC images, aren't they already paying for supported kernel
> images from some vendor too?
> 
> I understand where you are coming from -- I have also dealt with
> projects/machines running ancient, unsupported software/toolchains for
> various reasons; but nobody expected upstream (and in particular the
> mainline kernel source) to support them. In the cases I experienced,
> those use cases require not touching anything at all, and when the
> time came of doing so, everything would be updated at once,
> re-certified/validated as needed and frozen again.

Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
answer.

Sure, throwing out old compiler versions that are known to cause
problems makes sense. Updating to latest just because much less so.

One of the selling point of C in general and gcc in particular is
stability. If we need the latest compiler we can as well rewrite the
kernel in Rust which has a required update cycle of a few months.

Because some mainline kernel features rely on bleeding edge tools I end
up building mainline with current tools anyway but if you do not need
BTF or whatever other latest gimmick older toolchains should do.

Thanks

Michal

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> answer.

Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
also be welcome.

> Sure, throwing out old compiler versions that are known to cause
> problems makes sense. Updating to latest just because much less so.

I definitely did not argue for "latest compiler" or "updating just because".

> One of the selling point of C in general and gcc in particular is
> stability. If we need the latest compiler we can as well rewrite the
> kernel in Rust which has a required update cycle of a few months.

Rust does not have a "required update cycle" and it does not break old
code unless really required, just like C and common compilers.

Concerning GCC, they patch releases for ~2.5 years, sure, but for many
projects that is not nearly enough. So you still need custom support,
which is anyway what most people care about.

> Because some mainline kernel features rely on bleeding edge tools I end
> up building mainline with current tools anyway but if you do not need
> BTF or whatever other latest gimmick older toolchains should do.

It would be better to hear concrete arguments about why "older
toolchains should do", rather than calling things a gimmick.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> answer.

Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
also be welcome.

> Sure, throwing out old compiler versions that are known to cause
> problems makes sense. Updating to latest just because much less so.

I definitely did not argue for "latest compiler" or "updating just because".

> One of the selling point of C in general and gcc in particular is
> stability. If we need the latest compiler we can as well rewrite the
> kernel in Rust which has a required update cycle of a few months.

Rust does not have a "required update cycle" and it does not break old
code unless really required, just like C and common compilers.

Concerning GCC, they patch releases for ~2.5 years, sure, but for many
projects that is not nearly enough. So you still need custom support,
which is anyway what most people care about.

> Because some mainline kernel features rely on bleeding edge tools I end
> up building mainline with current tools anyway but if you do not need
> BTF or whatever other latest gimmick older toolchains should do.

It would be better to hear concrete arguments about why "older
toolchains should do", rather than calling things a gimmick.

Cheers,
Miguel

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> answer.

Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
also be welcome.

> Sure, throwing out old compiler versions that are known to cause
> problems makes sense. Updating to latest just because much less so.

I definitely did not argue for "latest compiler" or "updating just because".

> One of the selling point of C in general and gcc in particular is
> stability. If we need the latest compiler we can as well rewrite the
> kernel in Rust which has a required update cycle of a few months.

Rust does not have a "required update cycle" and it does not break old
code unless really required, just like C and common compilers.

Concerning GCC, they patch releases for ~2.5 years, sure, but for many
projects that is not nearly enough. So you still need custom support,
which is anyway what most people care about.

> Because some mainline kernel features rely on bleeding edge tools I end
> up building mainline with current tools anyway but if you do not need
> BTF or whatever other latest gimmick older toolchains should do.

It would be better to hear concrete arguments about why "older
toolchains should do", rather than calling things a gimmick.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> answer.

Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
also be welcome.

> Sure, throwing out old compiler versions that are known to cause
> problems makes sense. Updating to latest just because much less so.

I definitely did not argue for "latest compiler" or "updating just because".

> One of the selling point of C in general and gcc in particular is
> stability. If we need the latest compiler we can as well rewrite the
> kernel in Rust which has a required update cycle of a few months.

Rust does not have a "required update cycle" and it does not break old
code unless really required, just like C and common compilers.

Concerning GCC, they patch releases for ~2.5 years, sure, but for many
projects that is not nearly enough. So you still need custom support,
which is anyway what most people care about.

> Because some mainline kernel features rely on bleeding edge tools I end
> up building mainline with current tools anyway but if you do not need
> BTF or whatever other latest gimmick older toolchains should do.

It would be better to hear concrete arguments about why "older
toolchains should do", rather than calling things a gimmick.

Cheers,
Miguel

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Michal Suchánek]

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> > ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> > answer.
> 
> Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
> a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
> build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
> problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
> also be welcome.

Yes, bisecting comes to mind. If you need to switch the userspace as
well the bisection results are not that solid. You may not be even able
to bisect because the workload does not exist on a new system at all.
Crafting a minimal test case that can be forward-ported to a new system
is not always trivial - if you understood the problem to that extent you
might not even need to bisect it in the first place.

Thanks

Michal

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Michal Suchánek]

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> > ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> > answer.
> 
> Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
> a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
> build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
> problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
> also be welcome.

Yes, bisecting comes to mind. If you need to switch the userspace as
well the bisection results are not that solid. You may not be even able
to bisect because the workload does not exist on a new system at all.
Crafting a minimal test case that can be forward-ported to a new system
is not always trivial - if you understood the problem to that extent you
might not even need to bisect it in the first place.

Thanks

Michal

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Michal Suchánek]

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> > ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> > answer.
> 
> Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
> a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
> build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
> problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
> also be welcome.

Yes, bisecting comes to mind. If you need to switch the userspace as
well the bisection results are not that solid. You may not be even able
to bisect because the workload does not exist on a new system at all.
Crafting a minimal test case that can be forward-ported to a new system
is not always trivial - if you understood the problem to that extent you
might not even need to bisect it in the first place.

Thanks

Michal

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Michal Suchánek]

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> > ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
> > answer.
> 
> Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
> a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
> build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
> problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
> also be welcome.

Yes, bisecting comes to mind. If you need to switch the userspace as
well the bisection results are not that solid. You may not be even able
to bisect because the workload does not exist on a new system at all.
Crafting a minimal test case that can be forward-ported to a new system
is not always trivial - if you understood the problem to that extent you
might not even need to bisect it in the first place.

Thanks

Michal

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 04/05/2021 à 14:17, Michal Suchánek a écrit :
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
>>> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
>>> answer.
>>
>> Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
>> a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
>> build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
>> problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
>> also be welcome.
> 
> Yes, bisecting comes to mind. If you need to switch the userspace as
> well the bisection results are not that solid. You may not be even able
> to bisect because the workload does not exist on a new system at all.
> Crafting a minimal test case that can be forward-ported to a new system
> is not always trivial - if you understood the problem to that extent you
> might not even need to bisect it in the first place.
> 

But you don't need to switch the userspace or the complete build tools to build a kernel with a 
newer toolchain.

All you have to do is take one from https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

I'm doing everything under CentOS 6, and using one of those tools allows me to build latest kernel 
without breaking anything else.

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 04/05/2021 à 14:17, Michal Suchánek a écrit :
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
>>> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
>>> answer.
>>
>> Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
>> a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
>> build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
>> problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
>> also be welcome.
> 
> Yes, bisecting comes to mind. If you need to switch the userspace as
> well the bisection results are not that solid. You may not be even able
> to bisect because the workload does not exist on a new system at all.
> Crafting a minimal test case that can be forward-ported to a new system
> is not always trivial - if you understood the problem to that extent you
> might not even need to bisect it in the first place.
> 

But you don't need to switch the userspace or the complete build tools to build a kernel with a 
newer toolchain.

All you have to do is take one from https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

I'm doing everything under CentOS 6, and using one of those tools allows me to build latest kernel 
without breaking anything else.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 04/05/2021 à 14:17, Michal Suchánek a écrit :
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
>>> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
>>> answer.
>>
>> Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
>> a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
>> build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
>> problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
>> also be welcome.
> 
> Yes, bisecting comes to mind. If you need to switch the userspace as
> well the bisection results are not that solid. You may not be even able
> to bisect because the workload does not exist on a new system at all.
> Crafting a minimal test case that can be forward-ported to a new system
> is not always trivial - if you understood the problem to that extent you
> might not even need to bisect it in the first place.
> 

But you don't need to switch the userspace or the complete build tools to build a kernel with a 
newer toolchain.

All you have to do is take one from https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

I'm doing everything under CentOS 6, and using one of those tools allows me to build latest kernel 
without breaking anything else.

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 04/05/2021 à 14:17, Michal Suchánek a écrit :
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
>>> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
>>> answer.
>>
>> Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
>> a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
>> build it in a newer system? If you are talking about  particular
>> problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
>> also be welcome.
> 
> Yes, bisecting comes to mind. If you need to switch the userspace as
> well the bisection results are not that solid. You may not be even able
> to bisect because the workload does not exist on a new system at all.
> Crafting a minimal test case that can be forward-ported to a new system
> is not always trivial - if you understood the problem to that extent you
> might not even need to bisect it in the first place.
> 

But you don't need to switch the userspace or the complete build tools to build a kernel with a 
newer toolchain.

All you have to do is take one from https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

I'm doing everything under CentOS 6, and using one of those tools allows me to build latest kernel 
without breaking anything else.

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
> 
> I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

Both of these are GCC version 5.  GCC 5.1 is the first release of that,
GCC 5.2 the second, etc.  Everyone should always use an as new release
as practical, since many bugs will be fixed, and nothing else changed.

See <https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme>.

So, this means everyone using GCC 5 should be using the GCC 5.5 release!

If there is something about 5.1 that makes it produce bad kernels on
some arch, make that arch's Makefile complain?  Same with binutils etc.


Segher

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
> 
> I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

Both of these are GCC version 5.  GCC 5.1 is the first release of that,
GCC 5.2 the second, etc.  Everyone should always use an as new release
as practical, since many bugs will be fixed, and nothing else changed.

See <https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme>.

So, this means everyone using GCC 5 should be using the GCC 5.5 release!

If there is something about 5.1 that makes it produce bad kernels on
some arch, make that arch's Makefile complain?  Same with binutils etc.


Segher

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
> 
> I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

Both of these are GCC version 5.  GCC 5.1 is the first release of that,
GCC 5.2 the second, etc.  Everyone should always use an as new release
as practical, since many bugs will be fixed, and nothing else changed.

See <https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme>.

So, this means everyone using GCC 5 should be using the GCC 5.5 release!

If there is something about 5.1 that makes it produce bad kernels on
some arch, make that arch's Makefile complain?  Same with binutils etc.


Segher

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
> 
> I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

Both of these are GCC version 5.  GCC 5.1 is the first release of that,
GCC 5.2 the second, etc.  Everyone should always use an as new release
as practical, since many bugs will be fixed, and nothing else changed.

See <https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme>.

So, this means everyone using GCC 5 should be using the GCC 5.5 release!

If there is something about 5.1 that makes it produce bad kernels on
some arch, make that arch's Makefile complain?  Same with binutils etc.


Segher

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
> 
> I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:

Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4

Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5

So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time 
begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.

Christophe

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
> 
> I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:

Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4

Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5

So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time 
begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.

Christophe

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
> 
> I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:

Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4

Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5

So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time 
begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.

Christophe

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]
> 
> I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.

One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:

Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4

Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5

So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time 
begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.

Christophe

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Masahiro Yamada]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 3:17 PM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [1]
> >
> > I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.
>
> One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:
>
> Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4
>
> Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5
>
> So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
> Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time
> begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.
>
> Christophe



One line below in Documentation/process/changes.rst,
I see

     Clang/LLVM (optional)  10.0.1           clang --version



Clang 10.0.1 is a bug fix release of Clang 10


I do not think GCC 5.2 is strange when we
want to exclude the initial release of GCC 5.





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Masahiro Yamada]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 3:17 PM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [1]
> >
> > I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.
>
> One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:
>
> Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4
>
> Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5
>
> So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
> Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time
> begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.
>
> Christophe



One line below in Documentation/process/changes.rst,
I see

     Clang/LLVM (optional)  10.0.1           clang --version



Clang 10.0.1 is a bug fix release of Clang 10


I do not think GCC 5.2 is strange when we
want to exclude the initial release of GCC 5.





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Masahiro Yamada]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 3:17 PM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [1]
> >
> > I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.
>
> One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:
>
> Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4
>
> Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5
>
> So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
> Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time
> begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.
>
> Christophe



One line below in Documentation/process/changes.rst,
I see

     Clang/LLVM (optional)  10.0.1           clang --version



Clang 10.0.1 is a bug fix release of Clang 10


I do not think GCC 5.2 is strange when we
want to exclude the initial release of GCC 5.





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Masahiro Yamada]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 3:17 PM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [1]
> >
> > I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.
>
> One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:
>
> Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4
>
> Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5
>
> So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
> Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time
> begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.
>
> Christophe



One line below in Documentation/process/changes.rst,
I see

     Clang/LLVM (optional)  10.0.1           clang --version



Clang 10.0.1 is a bug fix release of Clang 10


I do not think GCC 5.2 is strange when we
want to exclude the initial release of GCC 5.





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:17 AM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [1]
> >
> > I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.
>
> One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:
>
> Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4
>
> Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5
>
> So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
> Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time
> begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.

And we may end up in the case when gcc 5.x will be more buggy than
v4.9.y (as once proved by nice detective story where compiler bug
produces a file system corruption).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:17 AM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [1]
> >
> > I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.
>
> One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:
>
> Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4
>
> Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5
>
> So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
> Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time
> begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.

And we may end up in the case when gcc 5.x will be more buggy than
v4.9.y (as once proved by nice detective story where compiler bug
produces a file system corruption).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:17 AM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [1]
> >
> > I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.
>
> One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:
>
> Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4
>
> Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5
>
> So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
> Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time
> begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.

And we may end up in the case when gcc 5.x will be more buggy than
v4.9.y (as once proved by nice detective story where compiler bug
produces a file system corruption).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:17 AM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> wrote:
> Le 01/05/2021 à 17:15, Masahiro Yamada a écrit :
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> >
> > When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> > to 5.1 globally. [1]
> >
> > I'd like to propose GCC 5.2 to clean up arch/powerpc/Kconfig as well.
>
> One point I missed when I saw your patch first time, but I realised during the discussion:
>
> Up to 4.9, GCC was numbered with 3 digits, we had 4.8.0, 4.8.1, ... 4.8.5, 4.9.0, 4.9.1, .... 4.9.4
>
> Then starting at 5, GCC switched to a 2 digits scheme, with 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ... 5.5
>
> So, that is not GCC 5.1 or 5.2 that you should target, but only GCC 5.
> Then it is up to the user to use the latest available version of GCC 5, which is 5.5 at the time
> begin, just like the user would have selected 4.9.4 when 4.9 was the minimum GCC version.

And we may end up in the case when gcc 5.x will be more buggy than
v4.9.y (as once proved by nice detective story where compiler bug
produces a file system corruption).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[David Sterba]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]

There are still a lot of comment references to old gcc releases with
workarounds or bugfixes, a quick serarch:

$ git grep -in 'gcc.*[234]\.x'
arch/alpha/include/asm/string.h:30:/* For gcc 3.x, we cannot have the inline function named "memset" because
arch/arc/include/asm/checksum.h:9: *  -gcc 4.4.x broke networking. Alias analysis needed to be primed.
arch/arm/Makefile:127:# Need -Uarm for gcc < 3.x
arch/ia64/lib/memcpy_mck.S:535: * Due to lack of local tag support in gcc 2.x assembler, it is not clear which
arch/mips/include/asm/page.h:210: * also affect MIPS so we keep this one until GCC 3.x has been retired
arch/x86/include/asm/page.h:53: * remove this Voodoo magic stuff. (i.e. once gcc3.x is deprecated)
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:5569:         * This union makes it completely explicit to gcc-3.x
arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c:302:      if (PREALLOCATED_PMDS == 0) /* Work around gcc-3.4.x bug */
drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c:51: * that warning from W=1 builds. GCC has supported this option since 4.2.X, but
lib/xz/xz_dec_lzma2.c:494: * of the code generated by GCC 3.x decreases 10-15 %. (GCC 4.3 doesn't care,
lib/xz/xz_dec_lzma2.c:495: * and it generates 10-20 % faster code than GCC 3.x from this file anyway.)
net/core/skbuff.c:32: * The functions in this file will not compile correctly with gcc 2.4.x

This misses version-specific quirks, but the following returns 216
results and not all are problematic (eg. just referring to gcc for some
historical reason) so I'm not pasting it here.

$ git grep -in 'gcc.*[234]\.[0-9]'
...

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[David Sterba]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]

There are still a lot of comment references to old gcc releases with
workarounds or bugfixes, a quick serarch:

$ git grep -in 'gcc.*[234]\.x'
arch/alpha/include/asm/string.h:30:/* For gcc 3.x, we cannot have the inline function named "memset" because
arch/arc/include/asm/checksum.h:9: *  -gcc 4.4.x broke networking. Alias analysis needed to be primed.
arch/arm/Makefile:127:# Need -Uarm for gcc < 3.x
arch/ia64/lib/memcpy_mck.S:535: * Due to lack of local tag support in gcc 2.x assembler, it is not clear which
arch/mips/include/asm/page.h:210: * also affect MIPS so we keep this one until GCC 3.x has been retired
arch/x86/include/asm/page.h:53: * remove this Voodoo magic stuff. (i.e. once gcc3.x is deprecated)
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:5569:         * This union makes it completely explicit to gcc-3.x
arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c:302:      if (PREALLOCATED_PMDS == 0) /* Work around gcc-3.4.x bug */
drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c:51: * that warning from W=1 builds. GCC has supported this option since 4.2.X, but
lib/xz/xz_dec_lzma2.c:494: * of the code generated by GCC 3.x decreases 10-15 %. (GCC 4.3 doesn't care,
lib/xz/xz_dec_lzma2.c:495: * and it generates 10-20 % faster code than GCC 3.x from this file anyway.)
net/core/skbuff.c:32: * The functions in this file will not compile correctly with gcc 2.4.x

This misses version-specific quirks, but the following returns 216
results and not all are problematic (eg. just referring to gcc for some
historical reason) so I'm not pasting it here.

$ git grep -in 'gcc.*[234]\.[0-9]'
...

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[David Sterba]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]

There are still a lot of comment references to old gcc releases with
workarounds or bugfixes, a quick serarch:

$ git grep -in 'gcc.*[234]\.x'
arch/alpha/include/asm/string.h:30:/* For gcc 3.x, we cannot have the inline function named "memset" because
arch/arc/include/asm/checksum.h:9: *  -gcc 4.4.x broke networking. Alias analysis needed to be primed.
arch/arm/Makefile:127:# Need -Uarm for gcc < 3.x
arch/ia64/lib/memcpy_mck.S:535: * Due to lack of local tag support in gcc 2.x assembler, it is not clear which
arch/mips/include/asm/page.h:210: * also affect MIPS so we keep this one until GCC 3.x has been retired
arch/x86/include/asm/page.h:53: * remove this Voodoo magic stuff. (i.e. once gcc3.x is deprecated)
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:5569:         * This union makes it completely explicit to gcc-3.x
arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c:302:      if (PREALLOCATED_PMDS == 0) /* Work around gcc-3.4.x bug */
drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c:51: * that warning from W=1 builds. GCC has supported this option since 4.2.X, but
lib/xz/xz_dec_lzma2.c:494: * of the code generated by GCC 3.x decreases 10-15 %. (GCC 4.3 doesn't care,
lib/xz/xz_dec_lzma2.c:495: * and it generates 10-20 % faster code than GCC 3.x from this file anyway.)
net/core/skbuff.c:32: * The functions in this file will not compile correctly with gcc 2.4.x

This misses version-specific quirks, but the following returns 216
results and not all are problematic (eg. just referring to gcc for some
historical reason) so I'm not pasting it here.

$ git grep -in 'gcc.*[234]\.[0-9]'
...

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[David Sterba]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:15:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.
> 
> When we discussed last time, we agreed to raise the minimum GCC version
> to 5.1 globally. [1]

There are still a lot of comment references to old gcc releases with
workarounds or bugfixes, a quick serarch:

$ git grep -in 'gcc.*[234]\.x'
arch/alpha/include/asm/string.h:30:/* For gcc 3.x, we cannot have the inline function named "memset" because
arch/arc/include/asm/checksum.h:9: *  -gcc 4.4.x broke networking. Alias analysis needed to be primed.
arch/arm/Makefile:127:# Need -Uarm for gcc < 3.x
arch/ia64/lib/memcpy_mck.S:535: * Due to lack of local tag support in gcc 2.x assembler, it is not clear which
arch/mips/include/asm/page.h:210: * also affect MIPS so we keep this one until GCC 3.x has been retired
arch/x86/include/asm/page.h:53: * remove this Voodoo magic stuff. (i.e. once gcc3.x is deprecated)
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:5569:         * This union makes it completely explicit to gcc-3.x
arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c:302:      if (PREALLOCATED_PMDS == 0) /* Work around gcc-3.4.x bug */
drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c:51: * that warning from W=1 builds. GCC has supported this option since 4.2.X, but
lib/xz/xz_dec_lzma2.c:494: * of the code generated by GCC 3.x decreases 10-15 %. (GCC 4.3 doesn't care,
lib/xz/xz_dec_lzma2.c:495: * and it generates 10-20 % faster code than GCC 3.x from this file anyway.)
net/core/skbuff.c:32: * The functions in this file will not compile correctly with gcc 2.4.x

This misses version-specific quirks, but the following returns 216
results and not all are problematic (eg. just referring to gcc for some
historical reason) so I'm not pasting it here.

$ git grep -in 'gcc.*[234]\.[0-9]'
...

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Pavel Machek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 717 bytes --]

On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.

Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,

>  Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +-
>  arch/arm64/Kconfig                | 2 +-
>  arch/powerpc/Kconfig              | 2 +-
>  arch/riscv/Kconfig                | 2 +-
>  include/linux/compiler-gcc.h      | 6 +-----
>  lib/Kconfig.debug                 | 2 +-
>  scripts/min-tool-version.sh       | 8 +-------
>  7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

and 10 lines of cleanups is really not worth that.

Best regards,
								Pavel

-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Pavel Machek]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 717 bytes --]

On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.

Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,

>  Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +-
>  arch/arm64/Kconfig                | 2 +-
>  arch/powerpc/Kconfig              | 2 +-
>  arch/riscv/Kconfig                | 2 +-
>  include/linux/compiler-gcc.h      | 6 +-----
>  lib/Kconfig.debug                 | 2 +-
>  scripts/min-tool-version.sh       | 8 +-------
>  7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

and 10 lines of cleanups is really not worth that.

Best regards,
								Pavel

-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Pavel Machek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 717 bytes --]

On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.

Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,

>  Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +-
>  arch/arm64/Kconfig                | 2 +-
>  arch/powerpc/Kconfig              | 2 +-
>  arch/riscv/Kconfig                | 2 +-
>  include/linux/compiler-gcc.h      | 6 +-----
>  lib/Kconfig.debug                 | 2 +-
>  scripts/min-tool-version.sh       | 8 +-------
>  7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

and 10 lines of cleanups is really not worth that.

Best regards,
								Pavel

-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Pavel Machek]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 717 bytes --]

On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> GCC 5.1.

Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,

>  Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +-
>  arch/arm64/Kconfig                | 2 +-
>  arch/powerpc/Kconfig              | 2 +-
>  arch/riscv/Kconfig                | 2 +-
>  include/linux/compiler-gcc.h      | 6 +-----
>  lib/Kconfig.debug                 | 2 +-
>  scripts/min-tool-version.sh       | 8 +-------
>  7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

and 10 lines of cleanups is really not worth that.

Best regards,
								Pavel

-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2021-05-15 at 09:14 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> 
> Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,

Why is that?  Later compiler versions are available.
http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

Is there some other reason your machine can not have the compiler
version updated?

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2021-05-15 at 09:14 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> 
> Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,

Why is that?  Later compiler versions are available.
http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

Is there some other reason your machine can not have the compiler
version updated?



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2021-05-15 at 09:14 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> 
> Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,

Why is that?  Later compiler versions are available.
http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

Is there some other reason your machine can not have the compiler
version updated?

Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2021-05-15 at 09:14 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2021-05-02 00:15:38, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > The current minimum GCC version is 4.9 except ARCH=arm64 requiring
> > GCC 5.1.
> 
> Please don't. I'm still on 4.9 on machine I can't easily update,

Why is that?  Later compiler versions are available.
http://cdn.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

Is there some other reason your machine can not have the compiler
version updated?



_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv