From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:14:28 +0100 Subject: ARMv4 (not v4t) marked obsolete in gcc-6 In-Reply-To: References: <201603101013.04618.arnd@arndb.de> <201603101738.55060.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <1990577.mfhmFbVfA9@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 11 March 2016 00:49:20 Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > > How long do you think you need for your systems? > > Do you still ship new products, or are these all legacy devices that > > will have a failing battery or flash at some point in the future? > > I'm using several old PDAs with StrongARM CPU. They have CF cards > and battery life isn't that important for me. I really see no point in dropping > support for them just because GCC folks told us so. The question for now is whether it's ok for you if gcc-7 stops shipping with support for -march-armv4. If you can either keep using your platforms with -march=armv4t and --fix-v4bx, or stop upgrading the toolchain after gcc-6, I think everything is fine from the platform point of view. > And BTW: I'm using EABI with that v4bx trick both in kernel and userspace. Do you have a patch for the kernel for this? I believe we never pass --fix-v4bx today, but we should probably start doing that on all linkers that understand it, so we don't get surprised by bugs when the compiler starts requiring it. Arnd