From: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
To: Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@renesas.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>,
"cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org" <cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org>
Subject: Re: 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:58:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211220095806.GA21780@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OSZPR01MB6877AA8378F08F7071E53A58B77B9@OSZPR01MB6877.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2258 bytes --]
Hi!
> > > I believe we should not change build requirements in the middle of
> > > stable series.
> > >
> > > To our testing team: 5.10.85 introduced new requirements for the
> > > build. gmp.h is now required in our configs, and maybe something else.
>
> Hi Pavel, sorry for missing this email before now.
> I can look into supporting this, depending on the answers to the comments below...
Thank you.
> > > Easiest fix might be to add
> > >
> > > # CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS is not set
> > >
> > > to our configs. Alternatively I know which patch to revert.
> > >
> > > But I believe -stable should be the one doing the revert, as the patch
> > > does not fix serious bug and introduces problem. Faster compile is
> > > nice but let mainline have those kind of changes.
> >
> > But that commit is needed to get gcc11 plugins to work with the 5.10.y
> > kernel tree. So either we "break" it for old and obsolete gcc versions
> > (i.e. gcc7), or newer supported versions break.
>
> Well this leads us to an interesting point.
> At the moment we use GCC v8.1.0 for building all of our kernel trees (cip & stable).
> What does CIP want to do mid/long term? Keep upgrading the version we use? Or try and support a specific version of GCC for 10 years?
> If the former, when do we want to upgrade?
> If the latter, which version?
>
We should do what our users are likely to do... they want stable
kernel, and will not update toolchain in middle of product
maintainance. [Updating toolchain when starting new product with given
-cip kernel is more likely].
I believe that means we should stick to specific version, but I'm not
sure what version it is. We support Debian distro, likely gcc version
from that distro would be a good option? Perhaps we should ask on TSC
meeting tommorow?
5.10 kernel was released in Dec 2020. At that time, gcc 8 and 9 were
maintained, and gcc 10 was new (https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html).
To get some results for -stable testing, easiest options might be to
disable gcc plugin support in Kconfig.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-20 9:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20211215172024.787958154@linuxfoundation.org>
[not found] ` <20211215183223.GB10909@duo.ucw.cz>
[not found] ` <Ybo2lbHVaASDyAcC@kroah.com>
2021-12-20 7:16 ` 5.10.85 breaks CIP testing Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/33] 5.10.86-rc1 review Chris Paterson
2021-12-20 9:58 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2021-12-20 17:04 ` Jan Kiszka
2021-12-21 13:23 ` [cip-dev] " nobuhiro1.iwamatsu
[not found] ` <16C26552C5A174AF.6275@lists.cip-project.org>
2021-12-20 8:18 ` Chris Paterson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211220095806.GA21780@amd \
--to=pavel@denx.de \
--cc=Chris.Paterson2@renesas.com \
--cc=cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox