linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board

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: <CAK8P3a09V1ZhhVCvdy27BiBCMM54zo4qyypgSDvrg2CdpneVmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:07:06 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
Cc:     Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de> wrote:
>> >> We also need to think about upholding support in GCC for
>> >> ARMv4(t) for the foreseeable future if there is a big web of
>> >> random deeply embedded systems out there that will need
>> >> updates.
>> >
>> > But we should definitely preserve at least what we have.
>>
>> Plain ARMv4 (and earlier) support in gcc is already marked
>> 'deprecated' and will likely be gone in gcc-8 (it's still there as of
>> last week). ARMv4T is going to be around for a while, and you can
>> even keep building for ARMv4 using "-march=armv4t -marm" when linking
>> with 'ld --fix-v4bx'.
>
> I think that we shall start complaining on the gcc-devel mailing list
> now.
>
> I would be hard to wake up in 2 years time and realise that we don't
> have a modern compiler.

What distro or build system are you using? It would also be helpful
to test whether the -march=armv4t/--fix-v4bx workaround produces
working binaries for you, in that case you could report to the gcc
developers that the removal of armv4 can continue but that
the --fix-v4bx option in ld needs to stay around.

       Arnd