On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> The original gcc-4.3 release was in early 2008. If we decide to still >>>> support that, we probably want the first 10 quirks in this series, >>>> while gcc-4.6 (released in 2011) requires none of them. >> >> I'd be in support of raising the minimum to gcc 4.6. (I'd actually >> prefer 4.7, just to avoid some 4.6 packaging issues, and for better >> gcc plugin support.) >> >> I'm curious what gcc 4.6 binaries are common in the wild besides >> old-stable Debian (unsupported in maybe a year from now?) and 12.04 >> Ubuntu (going fully unsupported in 2 weeks). It looks like 4.6 was >> used only in Fedora 15 and 16 (both EOL). > > I think we are better off defining two versions: One that we know > a lot of people care about, and we actively try to make that work > well in all configurations (e.g. 4.6, 4.7 or 4.8), fixing all warnings > we run into, and an older version that we try not to break > intentionally (e.g. 3.4, 4.1 or 4.3) but that we only fix when > someone actually runs into a problem they can't work around > by upgrading to a more modern compiler. For "working well everywhere" I feel like 4.8 is the better of those three (I'd prefer 4.9). I think we should avoid 4.6 -- it seems not widely used. For an old compiler... yikes. 3.4 sounds insane to me. :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security -- 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
