linux-kernel - Re: RFC: drop support for gcc

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, 22 Aug 2007 02:08:33 +0200
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: drop support for gcc < 4.0

>>> How many people e.g. test -rc kernels compiled with gcc 3.2?
>>
>> Why would that matter?  It either works or not.  If it doesn't
>> work, it can either be fixed, or support for that old compiler
>> version can be removed.
>
> One bug report "kernel doesn't work / crash / ... when compiled with
> gcc 3.2, but works when compiled with gcc 4.2" will most likely be lost
> in the big pile of unhandled bugs, not cause the removal of gcc 3.2
> support...

While that might be true, it's a separate problem.

>> The only other policy than "only remove support if things are
>> badly broken" would be "only support what the GCC team supports",
>> which would be >= 4.1 now; and there are very good arguments for
>> supporting more than that with the Linux kernel.
>
> No, it's not about bugs in gcc, it's about kernel+gcc combinations that
> are mostly untested but officially supported.

What does "officially supported" mean?  Especially the
"officially" part.  Is this documented somewhere?

> E.g. how many kernel developers use kernels compiled without
> unit-at-a-time? And unit-at-a-time does paper over some bugs,
> e.g. at about half a dozen section mismatch bugs I've fixed
> recently are not present with it.

If any developer is interested in supporting some certain old
compiler version, he should be testing regularly with it.  Sounds
like that's you ;-)

If no developer is interested, we shouldn't claim to support
using that compiler version.

> But as the discussions have shown gcc 4.0 is currently too high for
> making a cut, and it is not yet the right time for raising the minimum
> required gcc version.

Agreed.


Segher

-
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/