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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:00:27 +0100 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@...akpoint.cc> Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...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, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? On Friday, December 16, 2016 6:00:43 PM CET Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-12-16 11:56:21 [+0100], Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still > > support that, we probably want the first 10 quirks in this series, > > while gcc-4.6 (released in 2011) requires none of them. > > It this min gcc thingy ARM only? This is part of the question that I'm trying to figure out myself. Clearly having the same minimum version across all architectures simplifies things a lot, because many of the bugs in old versions are architecture independent. Then again, some architectures implicitly require a new version because an old one never existed (e.g. arm64 or risc-v), while some other architectures may require an old version. Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists