linux-kernel - Re: Does anyone care about gcc 3.x support for x86 anymore?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 May 2010 20:10:54 -0300
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, avi@...hat.com,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Does anyone care about gcc 3.x support for x86 anymore?

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Recently, we have seen an increasing number of problems with gcc 3.4 on
> x86; mostly due to poor constant propagation producing not just bad code
> but failing to properly eliminate what should be dead code.

I don't see any problem, as, if people are using gcc3, they are probably
not interested on the bleeding edge kernel. 

However, if the problems are just performance/dead code removal, I would 
just add a big warning if someone tries to compile x86 with it. I don't 
like very much the idea of having different minimum gcc requirements 
for each architecture, except if gcc is producing a broken code. 

Currently,Documentation/Changes list just a common minimal list for
everything - although the text describing gcc say that the "version 
requirements" may vary for each CPU type.

-- 

Cheers,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/