From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: c/s 14420 (gcc 3.4+ required) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:36:31 +0000 Message-ID: <45FE91DF.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> References: <45FE676C.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> Keir Fraser 19.03.07 10:51 >>> >On 19/3/07 09:35, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > >> what are the exact issues that required this change? SLES9 being based on >> gcc 3.3.3 makes it pretty undesirable for me/us to have this kind of a >> requirement. Despite me certainly being able to compile newer gcc-s (I >> actually have these around all the time), the mere fact to remember to pass >> a CC= each time I want to build Xen is going to make this cumbersome. >> >> Hence I'd like to understand the underlying issue(s), see whether they apply >> to the 3.3.x versions we have in use (aside of SLES9 I also continue to have >> one 9.0 system around that I use for regular building and testing). > >It's fine to build Xenolinux with older gcc versions. The new constraint is >just for the hypervisor itself, plus the toolstack. The issue is that all >gcc 3.3.x miscompile alignment attributes hidden inside typedefs, which we >were having to work around. It's not a big issue (the workaround in this >case is small), but gcc 3.4.0 has been available now for three years, and I >wouldn't recommend anyone to run a distro as old as SLES9 as their dom0 >anyway... I just scanned the tree and couldn't spot any such instance. Could you point me to one? Jan