On 01/23/20 14:01, Arvind Sankar wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:45:08AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:32 AM David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Will Deacon > > > > Sent: 23 January 2020 17:17 > > > > > > > > I think it depends how much we care about those older compilers. My series > > > > first moves it to "Good luck mate, you're on your own" and then follows up > > > > I wish the actual warning was worded that way. :P > > > > > > with a "Let me take that off you it's sharp". > > > > > Oh - and I need to find a newer compiler :-( > > > > What distro are you using? Does it have a package for a newer > > compiler? I'm honestly curious about what policies if any the kernel > > has for supporting developer's toolchains from their distributions. > > (ie. Arnd usually has pretty good stats what distro's use which > > version of GCC and are still supported; Do we strive to not break > > them? Is asking kernel devs to compile their own toolchain too much to > > ask? Is it still if they're using really old distro's/toolchains that > > we don't want to support? Do we survey kernel devs about what they're > > using?). Apologies if this is already documented somewhere, but if > > not I'd eventually like to brainstorm and write it down somewhere in > > the tree. Documentation/process/changes.rst doesn't really answer the > > above questions, I think. > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > ~Nick Desaulniers > > Reposting Arnd's link > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-kbuild/msg23648.html This list seems to be x86 centric? I remember when the switch to GCC 4.6 happened a couple or more archs had to be dropped because they lacked a newer compiler. So popular archs would probably have moved quickly, but 'niche' ones might still be catching up at a slower pace. -- Qais Yousef
