public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: florian@mickler.org, x86@kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: don't compile with gcc-3.3.3
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:56:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C8E49B7.7040104@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1284367195.2275.29.camel@laptop>

On 09/13/2010 01:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:31 +0200, florian@mickler.org wrote:
>> hpa commented on bug 16506[1] :
>> "Please note that gcc-3.3.3 is known broken on x86; gcc-3.4 is the oldest
>> version which is known to *not* be broken."
>>
>> References: 
>> 	[0]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16633
>> 	[1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16506#c28
>>
>> If that is indeed so, we should abort the build? No?
> 
> Does it in fact still build with 3.4? I seem to recall some talk about
> pushing the minimum version to 4.x for x86, although I can't remember
> where..

It does indeed still build with 3.4, although it is giving us a bunch of
headaches to *make it so*, and I would personally be really glad if the
consensus is we can just axe it.

The only reason to not abort the build for gcc 3.3.3 is that soem
"enterprise" distros have been shipping gcc 3.3.3 with backported fixes
from 3.4, which of course still identifies themselves as gcc 3.3.3, and
so technically it is iompossioble to tell if any particular "gcc 3.3.3"
is actually broken or not.

However, as far as I can tell, most of the people who build current x86
kernels with gcc 3.x are people who are testing building current kernels
with gcc 3.x.  Some of the embedded systems are different, because for
some strange reasons most of the embedded world seem stuck on gcc 3.4 or so.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.


  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-13 15:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-13  8:31 [RFC PATCH] x86: don't compile with gcc-3.3.3 florian
2010-09-13  8:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-13 15:56   ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2010-09-13 16:21     ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-13 16:28       ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-13 17:25         ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-09-13 18:42           ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-13 20:00             ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-09-13 20:03               ` Florian Mickler
2010-09-13 16:33   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-09-13 17:26     ` H. Peter Anvin

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=4C8E49B7.7040104@zytor.com \
    --to=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=florian@mickler.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vapier@gentoo.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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