[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3679707.TKdvBNIRe2@wuerfel>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:58:08 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
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?
On Friday, December 16, 2016 4:54:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 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.
What's the reason for sticking with gcc-4.1? Does this actually work better
for you than a more recent version, or is it just whatever you installed
when you started the build testing?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists