From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752833AbdI1LuC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:50:02 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:39643 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751082AbdI1LuB (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:50:01 -0400
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:49:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Miguel Bernal Marin <miguel.bernal.marin@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [x86/asm]  f5caf621ee: PANIC:double_fault
Message-ID: <20170928114952.7m7zr4zr6i5d56ko@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170928074758.GS17200@yexl-desktop>
 <20170928075907.bpxlop6bq4bn54sk@gmail.com>
 <20170928081850.ep3nqulhxeakwmzs@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170928084941.ygmvb6qfn3otfvac@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170928084941.ygmvb6qfn3otfvac@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:49:41AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Sure, but its still an officially supported GCC version. So either it
> > must be made to work, or we must update the minimal GCC version
> > requirements for the kernel.
> 
> Of course! I just mean I'd not be surprised if this was a GCC bug/quirk
> with legacy GCC versions that probably won't be fixed.

Ah, I recently had a case where this old GCC-4.4 crashed on 'obviously'
broken code while newer GCC's somehow made it 'work'.