From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: drop support for gcc < 4.0
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:54:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070821195433.GE30705@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070821191959.GC2642@bingen.suse.de>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:19:59PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Obviously a gcc <= 3.4 [1], and therefore no unit-at-a-time.
>
> Actually there are widely used 3.3 variants that support unit-at-a-time
> (e.g. 3.3-hammer which was shipped by several distributions for some time)
>
> There are still a lot of systems around which use gcc 3.3 (less so with
> 3.4). Unless there's a major bug that is hard to work around I would
> prefer to keep it supported.
>
> Bogus warnings should be relatively harmless.
How many kernel developers use such old gcc versions?
And how many people notice the valid modpost warnings that can indicate
a runtime Oops?
> > And it's becoming a real maintainance problem that not only this problem
> > but also other problems like some section mismatches [2] are only
> > present without unit-at-a-time.
>
> The unit-at-a-time output order is not defined, so even if it works
> with the current compiler a compiler change might still trigger
> that problem. So it would be better to fix those anyways.
The example [2] from my email is guaranteed to not be a problem with
unit-at-a-time (as long as unit-at-a-time implies
inline-functions-called-once - and that's although theoretically
possible quite unlikely to change in practice).
This example is for a bug that should be fixed, but my point is the
maintainability, IOW: issues with older compilers might not be
discovered and fixed before they go into a stable kernel.
We currently support 6 different stable gcc release series plus heavily
modified vendor branches like 3.3-hammer. We can discuss whether it is
now already the right time, and where to make the cut, but medium-term
we must reduce the number of supported compilers.
> -Andi
cu
Adrian
[2] example: static __init function with exactly one caller, and this
caller is non-__init
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-21 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20070821132038.GA22254@ff.dom.local>
[not found] ` <20070821093103.3c097d4a.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
2007-08-21 17:35 ` RFC: drop support for gcc < 4.0 Adrian Bunk
2007-08-21 17:54 ` Russell King
2007-08-21 18:14 ` Kyle McMartin
2007-08-21 18:29 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-08-22 5:48 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-08-21 18:25 ` Chris Wedgwood
2007-08-21 20:41 ` Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2007-08-21 20:56 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-08-21 21:01 ` Glauber de Oliveira Costa
2007-08-22 6:59 ` Thomas Bogendoerfer
2007-08-22 18:15 ` Ralf Baechle
2007-08-21 19:19 ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-21 19:54 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2007-08-21 20:07 ` [RFC][PATCH] introduce TASK_SIZE_OF() for all arches Matthew Wilcox
2007-08-21 20:08 ` RFC: drop support for gcc < 4.0 Linus Torvalds
2007-08-21 20:21 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-08-21 20:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-08-22 7:36 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-08-21 20:49 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-08-21 21:21 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-08-21 21:49 ` James Bottomley
2007-08-21 22:09 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-08-22 0:08 ` Segher Boessenkool
2007-08-22 6:07 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-08-21 21:41 ` Oliver Pinter
2007-08-22 7:57 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-08-22 8:08 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-08-22 8:10 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-08-22 8:42 ` Michal Piotrowski
2007-08-22 8:56 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-08-22 8:48 ` Martin Michlmayr
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=20070821195433.GE30705@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jarkao2@o2.pl \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).