From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Clang/LLVM version requirements Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:51:03 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1347550071.24226.128.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1347550071.24226.128.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Paolo Bonzini , "Tim (Xen.org)" , Jeffrey Karrels , Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 13/09/2012 16:27, "Ian Campbell" wrote: >> I should add, this is mainly a question of how aggressive we should be. I'm >> quite happy to retire gcc-3.4 support if it happens it is now broken. In >> that case, x86/Rules.mk should have its gcc version check updated. And >> perhaps arch/arm may as well do the same? I would be happy to Ack a patch to >> that effect. > > Some data points: Debian Squeeze (current stable) has gcc 4.4 as the > default (but ships a bunch of others) and Lenny (previous stable) had > 4.3. AFAICT RHEL5 and SLES10 both shipped 4.1, SLES11 shipped 4.3 and > RHEL 6 4.4. > > Do we really want/need to support host OSes older than RHEL5/SLES10? We > are talking 2006/7 vintage there. Yes, I think that is where we are going to draw the line. Thanks.