linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Bump gcc minimum version to 3.4, 4.1 for x86

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:24:30 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Bump gcc minimum version to 3.4, 4.1 for x86

On 09/13/2010 05:11 PM, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> This patchset bumps the minimum supported gcc version to 3.4 for the
>> general kernel, and to 4.1 for x86.
>>
>> We have had a rash of bug reports related to these really old
>> compilers and their associated binutils version lately, and it is
>> clear that the support burden of these older compilers is getting to
>> be excessive.  If you really want to build a kernel on a system that
>> old you can build or obtain an updated gcc/binutils as well.
> 
> What version of binutils does this correspond to?  It would be nice to
> clean up some of the hacks for ancient binutils as well.
> 

4.1 -> 2.16
3.4 -> 2.14/2.15 (gcc 3.4.0 beat binutils 2.15 by a mere 29 days)

This is somewhat unfortunate, since neither of these brackets eliminate
the Binutils Version From Hell, a.k.a. 2.16.

	-hpa


--
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/