Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: Blacklist GCC 5.4 6.1 and 6.2

[Cyril Bur <cyrilbur@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 09:44 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Cyril,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 02:35:36PM +1100, Cyril Bur wrote:
> > A bug in the -02 optimisation of GCC 5.4 6.1 and 6.2 causes
> > setup_command_line() to not pass the correct first argument to strcpy
> > and therefore not actually copy the command_line.
> 
> There is no such thing as an "-O2 optimisation".

Right, perhaps I should have phrased it as "One of the -O2 level
optimisations of GCC 5.4, 6.1 and 6.2 causes setup_command_line() to
not pass the correct first argument to strcpy and therefore not
actually copy the command_line, -O1 does not have this problem."

> 
> > At the time of writing GCC 5.4 is the most recent and is affected. GCC
> > 6.3 contains the backported fix, has been tested and appears safe to
> > use.
> 
> 6.3 is (of course) the newer release; 5.4 is a maintenance release of
> a compiler that is a year older.

Yes. I think the point I was trying to make is that since they
backported the fix to 5.x and 6.x then I expect that 5.5 will have the
fix but since it doesn't exist yet, I can't be sure. I'll add something
to that effect.

> 
> > +# - gcc-5.4, 6.1, 6.2 don't copy the command_line around correctly
> > +		echo -n '*** GCC-5.4 6.1 6.2 have a bad -O2 optimisation ' ; \
> > +		echo 'which will cause lost command_line options (at least).' ; \
> 
> Maybe something more like
> 
> "GCC 5.4, 6.1, and 6.2 have a bug that results in a kernel that does
> not boot.  Please use GCC 6.3 or later.".

"that may not boot" is more accurate, if it can boot without a
command_line param it might just do so.

> 
> Please mention the GCC PR # somewhere in the code, too?
> 

Sure.

Thanks,

Cyril

> 
> Segher