[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201011110420.GO2672@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 06:04:20 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Mark Wielaard <mark@...mp.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
"Phillips, Kim" <kim.phillips@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Additional debug info to aid cacheline analysis
Hi!
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:58:36PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 02:23:00PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So I guess could disable it for 5.0+ only.
>
> Yes, that would work. I don't know what the lowest supported GCC
> version is, but technically it was definitely fixed in 4.10.0, 4.8.4
> and 4.9.2.
Fwiw, GCC 4.10 was renamed to GCC 5 before it was released (it was the
first release with the new version number scheme). Only old development
versions (that no one should use) identify as 4.10.
> And various distros would probably have backported the
> fix. But checking for 5.0+ would certainly give you a good version.
Yes, esp. since some versions of 4.9 and 4.8 are still buggy. No one
should use any version for which a newer bug-fix release has long been
available, but do you want to deal with bugs from people who do not?
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists