[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170928114952.7m7zr4zr6i5d56ko@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:49:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miguel Bernal Marin <miguel.bernal.marin@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [x86/asm] f5caf621ee: PANIC:double_fault
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:49:41AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Sure, but its still an officially supported GCC version. So either it
> > must be made to work, or we must update the minimal GCC version
> > requirements for the kernel.
>
> Of course! I just mean I'd not be surprised if this was a GCC bug/quirk
> with legacy GCC versions that probably won't be fixed.
Ah, I recently had a case where this old GCC-4.4 crashed on 'obviously'
broken code while newer GCC's somehow made it 'work'.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists