From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:59816 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761577AbcLPT6S (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:58:18 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6? Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:58:08 +0100 Message-ID: <3679707.TKdvBNIRe2@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: References: <20161216105634.235457-1-arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Linux-Arch , linux-kbuild , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Andrew Morton , kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Friday, December 16, 2016 4:54:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Specifically on ARM, going further makes things rather useless especially > > for build testing: with gcc-4.2, we lose support for ARMv7, EABI, and > > effectively ARMv6 (as it relies on EABI for building reliably). Also, > > the number of false-positive build warnings is so high that it is useless > > for finding actual bugs from the warnings. > > If you start with that activity now, there's indeed a massive amount of > warnings to look into. > However, I've been build testing various configs with m68k-linux-gnu-gcc-4.1.2 > and looking at the compiler warnings for years, so I only have to look > at new warnings. What's the reason for sticking with gcc-4.1? Does this actually work better for you than a more recent version, or is it just whatever you installed when you started the build testing? Arnd