Re: RFC: drop support for gcc < 4.0

Adrian Bunk
2007-08-21T18:30:36Z

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:54:53PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:31:03AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:20:38 +0200 Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here are some more of, probably well-known, warnings with attached
> > > > testing-only .config.
> > > >...
> > > > drivers/pci/msi.c:686: warning: weak declaration of `arch_msi_check_device' after first use results in unspecified behavior
> > > > drivers/pci/msi.c:698: warning: weak declaration of `arch_setup_msi_irqs' after first use results in unspecified behavior
> > > > drivers/pci/msi.c:718: warning: weak declaration of `arch_teardown_msi_irqs' after first use results in unspecified behavior
> > > >...
> > >
> > > What gcc version? I don't get the arch_ warnings in drivers/pci/msi.c.
> >
> > Obviously a gcc <= 3.4 [1], and therefore no unit-at-a-time.
> >
> > You can reproduce it with a more recent gcc when adding
> > -fno-unit-at-a-time to the CFLAGS.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Currently we support 6 different stable gcc release series, and it might
> > be the right time to consider dropping support for the older ones.
> >
> > Are there any architectures still requiring a gcc < 4.0 ?
>
> I want to keep support for gcc 3.4.3 for ARM for the forseeable future.
> >From my point of view, gcc 4 compilers have been something of a development
> thing as far as the ARM architecture goes.
>...

It is an option to say "gcc >= 4.0 on i386 and >= 3.4 on all other
architectures is required".

> Russell King

cu
Adrian

--

"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