[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <299822.1616068026@turing-police>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 07:47:06 -0400
From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] gcc-plugins: avoid errors with -std=gnu++11 on old gcc
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:07:28 +0900, Masahiro Yamada said:
> We can require GCC 6+ for building GCC plugins.
> + depends on CC_IS_GCC && GCC_VERSION >= 60000
I'd be OK with that personally, but the question is whether
any gcc 4.9 or 5.x users are using plugins. That's a bit above
my pay grade. Kees? Do we have any data on that? (All I know
is that there is at least one, because they tripped over the GCC bug
that prompted the second patch)
> BTW, the commit message mentions that
> the issues only happen on GCC 4 and 5,
> but the added code was:
>
> GCC_FLAVOR = $(call cc-ifversion, -ge, 1100, 11, 98)
>
> instead of
>
> GCC_FLAVOR = $(call cc-ifversion, -ge, 600, 11, 98)
>
> So, this patch is also requiring to cover two standards:
>
> GCC_VERSION >= 11 : -std=gnu++11
> GCC_VERSION < 11 : -std=gnu++98
I chose 1100 so that everything from 4.9 to 10 would keep getting
handed gnu++98 the way they had been, and only change it for
gcc11.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists