From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA64C433E9 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 17:41:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0556164DC4 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 17:41:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0556164DC4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:35284 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l856L-0004ck-Tc for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 12:41:01 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45324) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l84RM-0004iU-9Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:58:40 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:25884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l84RI-00038h-E5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:58:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1612544315; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=KGswybY2Uws+/RNHIR+quxtECvTrU30wocTGN92ByfQ=; b=PzrkhNQgtkbotSTyalI3df4zPhAQsL76m8xxsrkFOU2JN7v9Jdxj8OcZ/+wxuv/nTlXzE5 jtn1YakVHcD8Rhh4GUq0GBy2nW7Vq7RWXa8S22tcWkFLne4ka1V7WzNOYyZWVDEjZrT71J GFFsowElLFHQ0MBn8QpitYcWn3fzXHg= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-591-JUl3EyHVMIW2Z4j9x9ZNWw-1; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:58:20 -0500 X-MC-Unique: JUl3EyHVMIW2Z4j9x9ZNWw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01197107ACF3; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 16:58:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-114-212.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.212]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298FE19C47; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 16:58:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 16:58:03 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Thomas Huth Subject: Re: [PULL v2 00/27] Block patches Message-ID: <20210205165803.GS908621@redhat.com> References: <20210204154327.386529-1-stefanha@redhat.com> <20210205162105.GB416527@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <4b05dea5-be2e-1da1-30bb-ade792ec75cd@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4b05dea5-be2e-1da1-30bb-ade792ec75cd@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=berrange@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -30 X-Spam_score: -3.1 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.352, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: Elena Ufimtseva , Peter Maydell , Jagannathan Raman , Eduardo Habkost , Qemu-block , John G Johnson , "Denis V. Lunev" , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , QEMU Developers , Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , Igor Mammedov , Fam Zheng , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 05:52:59PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 05/02/2021 17.23, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 16:21, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > Thanks, I update the patch in question. > > > > > > It looks like the GitLab CI doesn't include a clang version that > > > produces this error because the pipeline passed for me: > > > https://gitlab.com/stefanha/qemu/-/pipelines/251524779 > > > > > > Is there something clang-specific you want to check in the CI? Maybe > > > clang 3.4, the oldest version supported according to ./configure? > > > > Would probably be nice I guess. My ad-hoc builds use clang 6, > > which is what tripped up here. > > We should maybe discuss first whether we can bump the minimum version of > Clang that we would like to support. I once picked Clang 3.4 since that was > available in EPEL for RHEL7, but I think there were newer versions of Clang > available in RHEL7 via other repos later, so 3.4 is likely really just way > too old now... > > According to https://developers.redhat.com/HW/ClangLLVM-RHEL-7 there was at > least Clang 7.0 available on RHEL7. Debian stable seems to have at least > 7.0, too, according to repology.org. Ubuntu 18.04 seems to have version 6, > but later ones are available via updates? Anyway, I think we could at least > bump the minimum version to 6.0 nowadays... Per our support matrix, this is the last dev cycle where we need to care about RHEL-7, as RHEL-7 will be past the 2 year cutoff in the QEMU 6.1 cycle. Furthermore given that CLang was only ever an EPEL package, not a core part of the distro, I think we are justified in just ignoring RHEL-7 already for purpose of choosing CLang min version. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|