From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:07:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board In-Reply-To: <20171217204122.0a10a5e1@jawa> References: <20171116232239.16823-1-lukma@denx.de> <20171211233625.5689-1-lukma@denx.de> <1513153607.2439.2.camel@Nokia-N900> <20171217204122.0a10a5e1@jawa> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >> >> We also need to think about upholding support in GCC for >> >> ARMv4(t) for the foreseeable future if there is a big web of >> >> random deeply embedded systems out there that will need >> >> updates. >> > >> > But we should definitely preserve at least what we have. >> >> Plain ARMv4 (and earlier) support in gcc is already marked >> 'deprecated' and will likely be gone in gcc-8 (it's still there as of >> last week). ARMv4T is going to be around for a while, and you can >> even keep building for ARMv4 using "-march=armv4t -marm" when linking >> with 'ld --fix-v4bx'. > > I think that we shall start complaining on the gcc-devel mailing list > now. > > I would be hard to wake up in 2 years time and realise that we don't > have a modern compiler. What distro or build system are you using? It would also be helpful to test whether the -march=armv4t/--fix-v4bx workaround produces working binaries for you, in that case you could report to the gcc developers that the removal of armv4 can continue but that the --fix-v4bx option in ld needs to stay around. Arnd