[PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2
miguel.ojeda.sandonis at gmail.com
Tue May 4 13:09:24 BST 2021
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Michal Suchánek <msuchanek at suse.de> wrote:
> Except it makes answering the question "Is this bug we see on this
> ancient system still present in upstream?" needlessly more difficult to
Can you please provide some details? If you are talking about testing
a new kernel image in the ancient system "as-is", why wouldn't you
build it in a newer system? If you are talking about particular
problems about bisecting (kernel, compiler) pairs etc., details would
also be welcome.
> Sure, throwing out old compiler versions that are known to cause
> problems makes sense. Updating to latest just because much less so.
I definitely did not argue for "latest compiler" or "updating just because".
> One of the selling point of C in general and gcc in particular is
> stability. If we need the latest compiler we can as well rewrite the
> kernel in Rust which has a required update cycle of a few months.
Rust does not have a "required update cycle" and it does not break old
code unless really required, just like C and common compilers.
Concerning GCC, they patch releases for ~2.5 years, sure, but for many
projects that is not nearly enough. So you still need custom support,
which is anyway what most people care about.
> Because some mainline kernel features rely on bleeding edge tools I end
> up building mainline with current tools anyway but if you do not need
> BTF or whatever other latest gimmick older toolchains should do.
It would be better to hear concrete arguments about why "older
toolchains should do", rather than calling things a gimmick.
More information about the linux-riscv