linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

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]

Message-ID: <2778134.jZdhGefl4B@wuerfel>
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