Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Arnd,

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 4:54:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> 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?

It's just the cross compiler I built .debs of a long time ago.
As long as it works, I see no reason to upgrade, especially as long as I see
warnings for bugs that no one else is seeing. But lately you started beating
me with newer gccs ;-)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds