[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdn6ohOi-KSSOkC8BirHgXRRkbCk3Z_ySEyPPMg31cDB-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:05:08 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Andy Lavr <andy.lavr@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] lib/string.c: implement stpcpy
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 9:28 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 21:22 -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > It would be nice to get this into mainline sooner rather than later so
> > that it can start filtering into the stable trees. ToT LLVM builds have
> > been broken for a month now.
>
> People that build stable trees with new compilers
> unsupported at the time the of the base version
> release are just asking for trouble.
It is asymmetry that we have a minimum supported version of a
toolchain, but no maximum supported version of a toolchain for a given
branch. I think that's a good thing; imagine if you were stuck on an
old compiler for a stable branch. No thanks. I guess we just like to
live dangerously? :P
Also, GKH has voiced support for newer toolchains for older kernel
releases before. Related to this issue, in fact.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200818072531.GC9254@kroah.com/
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists