On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 17:56 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:57:48AM +0200, Michal Marek wrote: > > On 2015-04-15 21:45, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > gcc recently switched to a new version number scheme, where every version > > > gets a new major version number. The current version is 5.x, the next 6.x, etc. > > > > > > The gcc git repository trunk branch just switched to report 6.x for the next > > > major release. > > > > > > This breaks the way Linux selects compiler-gccX.h based on the major > > > version. Every new version would require adding a new compiler-gccX.h file, > > > which wouldn't really scale. > > > > > > Let's assume that future gccs are fairly compatible (they are unlikely > > > to break anything Linux is relying on). So we can just keep using > > > compiler-gcc5.h, and select any specific differences with #if. > > > > Good idea. With the new scheme, we could also merge back compiler-gcc5.h > > and compiler-gcc4.h. The only difference is the KASAN_ABI_VERSION define. > > Would be fine too. Are you doing that, or should I send a patch? As compiler-gcc3.h is trivial, what about integrating the whole thing into a single file and get rid of the compiler-gcc<version>.h files? That would deduplicate the __must_check and __used macros. I added Sasha Levin to the cc's as he was the only complainant the first time I suggested this. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/4/675 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
