[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUa4j8nxrW=fSJQZok3=mW-FWZWHR=cYS2R0gQUeGHgmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:54:33 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kernel-build-reports@...ts.linaro.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?
Hi Arnd,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> Specifically on ARM, going further makes things rather useless especially
> for build testing: with gcc-4.2, we lose support for ARMv7, EABI, and
> effectively ARMv6 (as it relies on EABI for building reliably). Also,
> the number of false-positive build warnings is so high that it is useless
> for finding actual bugs from the warnings.
If you start with that activity now, there's indeed a massive amount of
warnings to look into.
However, I've been build testing various configs with m68k-linux-gnu-gcc-4.1.2
and looking at the compiler warnings for years, so I only have to look
at new warnings.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists