From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS
	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 04108C433DB
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:52:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8FE23434
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:52:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1730395AbhANTwj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:52:39 -0500
Received: from smtprelay0154.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.154]:34152 "EHLO
        smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728474AbhANTwj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:52:39 -0500
Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60])
        by smtprelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222B01E02;
        Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:51:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D
X-HE-Tag: rain54_480ec0327529
X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2836
Received: from [192.168.1.159] (unknown [47.151.137.21])
        (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com)
        by omf01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA;
        Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:51:55 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <fd3f26b7a70d3b90f1368c55532e463ef2fb9fa4.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler.h: Raise minimum version of GCC to 5.1 for
 arm64
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@android.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 11:51:53 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjHTpG+gMx9vqrZgo8Uw0NqA2kNjS87o63Zv3=WG2K3zA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210112224832.10980-1-will@kernel.org>
         <161055398865.21762.12236232732054213928.b4-ty@arm.com>
         <CAK7LNASs6dvU6D3jL2GG3jW58fXfaj6VNOe55NJnTB8UPuk2pA@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAHk-=wiQ_tp8NmKV8PJ-6WMo3dTEZwDo3a0hYjcUFqMdviNTYw@mail.gmail.com>
         <20210113214436.GL1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
         <CAHk-=wjqGRXUp6KOdx-eHYEotGvY=a5tSY1mF-BkAcX2YAuBYw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAMj1kXFaDNRbDvr43VLEHFRHHS0sGGcF=iTfES4sxPg-rZ34NA@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAHk-=wjHTpG+gMx9vqrZgo8Uw0NqA2kNjS87o63Zv3=WG2K3zA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 10:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:18 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > So if the arguments are piling up, what is holding us back, other than
> > inertia?
> 
> I think we can most certainly just try increasing the minimum version
> to 5.1 in the next merge window and see.
> 
> > Note that banning 4.9 for arm64 and banning it in general should be
> > two different changes in any case, as the former will need to be
> > backported to -stable kernels as well.
> 
> Yes. The arm64 issue is a clear and known bug, plus I suspect gcc-4.9
> is ridiculously old in the arm64 ecosystem anyway.
> 
> So the arm64 issue is a bug-fix, the follow-up of just upgrading gcc
> requirements in general would be a "keep up with the times, and allow
> those variable declarations in loops".

Given the upgrade requirement, and how clang version requirements
constantly change, how much more difficult would it be for others
to use gcc 7.1 or higher now instead of later?