Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1549143
| From | Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? |
| Date | 2017-01-02 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sV9Ut-6L5-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sOYp3-2rU-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sP4b7-6vt-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sP8Rs-Yj-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sPlvj-A6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:29:50PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > A new version is understandable. But why is an old version required? > One thing is an enterprise distro that is "current" or "supported" and still > stuck with gcc 4.1 because that is the version they decided to include in > their release. This is sad. But you might want to ask yourself why you want > the latest kernel but an old gcc / binutils. To help isolate changes. If you constantly upgrade everything, how do you bug hunt for a breakage? How do you know whether it's created by the kernel, or by (eg) a later version of gcc miscompiling the kernel. You have a large amount of code to start bug hunting through. Sticking with particular tool versions long-term means that you build up confidence in it - yes, sure, latent bugs exist, but it's easier to bug hunt if you aren't constantly suspecting that your tools might be broken. For example, I build kernels with: gcc binutils built on 32-bit ARM 4.7.4 2.25 April/May 2015 64-bit ARM 4.9.2 2.25.51.20150219 Feb/April 2015 I'm not anticipating upgrading them for some time yet - the only one which may get upgraded is the 64-bit binutils since later kernels now complain about a missing errata workaround in that toolchain version. I do still have some older toolchains around on some of my ARM boxes though, even a GCC 3 version with ARM TLS support for faster builds! -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-12-16 12:10 +0100
[PATCH 01/13] [HACK] gcc-4.5: avoid link errors for unused function pointers Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-12-16 12:10 +0100
Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-12-16 12:20 +0100
Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2016-12-16 17:10 +0100
Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-12-16 21:00 +0100
Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2016-12-16 21:40 +0100
Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2016-12-16 18:10 +0100
Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-12-16 23:10 +0100
Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2016-12-17 12:40 +0100
Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk> - 2017-01-02 13:30 +0100
Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> - 2016-12-20 11:00 +0100
csiph-web