Re: [patch 014/102] llist: introduce llist_entry_safe()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 9:16 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:29:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 4:11 PM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks like it was fixed soon after the complain:
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63567
> >
> > Ahh, so there are gcc versions which essentially do this wrong, and
> > I'm not seeing it because it was fixed.
> >
> > Ho humm. Considering that this was fixed in gcc five years ago, and we
> > already require gc-4.6, and did that two years ago, maybe we can just
> > raise the requirement a bit further.
> >
> > BUT.
> >
> > It's not clear which versions are ok with this. In your next email you said:
> >
> > > It would mean bumping GCC version requirements to 4.7.
> >
> > which I think would be reasonable, but is it actually ok in 4.7?
>
> I think, not. I don't have 4.7 around, but 4.9.3 has the issue if
> -std=gnu99 is used.
>
> > The bugzilla entry says "Target Milestone: 5.0", and I'm not sure how
> > to check what that "revision=216440" ends up actually meaning.
> >
> > I have a git tree of gcc, and in that one 216440 is commit
> > d303aeafa9b, but that seems to imply it only made it into 5.1:
> >
> >   [torvalds@i7 gcc]$ git name-rev --tags
> > d303aeafa9b46e06cd853696acb6345dff51a6b9
> >   d303aeafa9b46e06cd853696acb6345dff51a6b9 tags/gcc-5_1_0-release~3943
> >
> > so we'd have to jump forward a _lot_.
> >
> > That's a bit sad and annoying. I'd be ok with jumping to 4.7, but I'm
> > not sure we can jump to 5.1.
> >
> > Although maybe we should be a _lot_ more aggressive about gcc
> > versions, I'm on gcc-9.2.1 right now, and gcc-5.1 is from April 22,
> > 2015.
>
> 5.4.1 builds kernel fine for me with allmodconfig (minus retpoline which
> requires compiler support). Both -std=gnu99 and -std=gnu11.
>
> Note that GCC has changed their version scheme. 5.4.1 is bug-fix release
> of GCC-5.


I tested -std=gnu99 for ARM
with pre-built Linaro toolchains.


GCC 4.9.4 was NG,
GCC 5.3.1 was OK.



If we increase the minimal GCC version,
we might end up with dropping more architecture.

I can no longer get the toolchains for hexagon, unicore32.


https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/
provides hexagon compilers, but only for GCC 4.6.1



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada



[Index of Archives]     [Linux&nblp;USB Development]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Secrets]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux