From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6AEC433E0 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:13:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A6023339 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:13:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729277AbhAMWMp (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:12:45 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51780 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729253AbhAMWJL (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:09:11 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02590C061795 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id b26so5051100lff.9 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:08:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/qpRsvWTUoPBimP/fo2jeNBuh57czhavnYXwy3EGUNQ=; b=O5tD7VX8Mw1Uqj4pHOrzf+txpuEcvVOqvDrs/kAgC+/pePEkQty3XvzGM/Ge6lKAam BwY186f3pvtuJS1Tk+stRMAPL1/LYVfS49sZoBf3yWAtCywFqXwngOIPsxeNQwW6PgGw 9noPxfBNWI0yfKSt50EuHP4VdFSbA9pwM4ixw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/qpRsvWTUoPBimP/fo2jeNBuh57czhavnYXwy3EGUNQ=; b=pIFl3FXf8uTuRpUvDs/8fSDLjaZaqwWJwDxTAl0n/A2CGR2+q8b0iAh9HGUaBiQuKt fOgkJ9fDdeDCp9CBKVIQkxXPMrAJPLzPLk/F7hAYUfJ093SPzQLl8GEp/hqaZm2G7GFD 5cMFtZ3CqOxhemQ/rPU7lBNhARe741e1dqKaqFeAkN8odmdvb3rgg5VPcQZzWYOt3HtY 980mkmW7oq911MfSjjoNq5LJL+HsBA3CwQbgt3lcrhl7TD0O7UrNHdUrikTtuToxBXmS /MXekNpE4CC3ptAxVk7uuluDlYApi72CKiRpaMrlQbIBzwuSb3ixkY4m6vv8oysI6aD8 tUkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532p32K5KXDv+tgpwL7THE0HJPPhi/+iDPOBXFi2ZLYvqSrcYdR5 puKagc/Fv1cNJifNN7xZia+rGwkOxv/rlg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0p13K5ivKeqhtolNtmA45BpTLl2HxUeAz7YjjxLAdysLEeWOHrrpLsvONuKz9roAzbSRugw== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5c08:: with SMTP id r8mr1718922lfp.12.1610575707875; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:08:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lj1-f170.google.com (mail-lj1-f170.google.com. [209.85.208.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v7sm335015lfg.9.2021.01.13.14.08.26 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-f170.google.com with SMTP id f17so4268546ljg.12 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:08:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6f17:: with SMTP id k23mr1742942ljc.411.1610575705754; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:08:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210112224832.10980-1-will@kernel.org> <161055398865.21762.12236232732054213928.b4-ty@arm.com> <20210113214436.GL1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20210113214436.GL1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:08:09 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler.h: Raise minimum version of GCC to 5.1 for arm64 To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin Cc: Masahiro Yamada , Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel , Will Deacon , Arnd Bergmann , Nick Desaulniers , "Theodore Ts'o" , "Cc: Android Kernel" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra , Florian Weimer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 1:44 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > So, maybe the Sparc issue was just a similar but different bug in gcc > 4.9.x. Good catch. And I know this bug has happened independently on different architectures several times (I remember this on x86-64 as well), so I started looking around. And in fact, 4.9 was buggy on x86-64 too: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61904 And yeah, _that_ gcc bug wasn't actually x86-64 specific, but apparently a generic instruction scheduling bug. So it's an independent bug, but I do have to admit that the arguments against 4.9 are piling up (even if that particular fix apparently got fixed in the gcc branches and apparently backported to distro compilers too). Linus