On Sun, 2019-09-22 at 21:26 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 9:04 PM Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It looks like this is triggered by you switching arm builds from gcc 8 > > to 9, rather than by any code change. > > > > Does it actually make sense to try to support building Linux 3.16 with > > gcc 9? If so, I suppose I'll need to add: > > > > commit edc966de8725f9186cc9358214da89d335f0e0bd > > Author: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri Aug 2 12:37:56 2019 +0200 > > > > Backport minimal compiler_attributes.h to support GCC 9 > > > > commit a6e60d84989fa0e91db7f236eda40453b0e44afa > > Author: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Sat Jan 19 20:59:34 2019 +0100 > > > > include/linux/module.h: copy __init/__exit attrs to init/cleanup_module > > Yeah, those should fix it. A week or two back I tried building 3.16 for x86_64 with gcc 8, which produced some warnings but did succeed (and I know Guenter successfully build-tests 3.16 with gcc 8 for many architectures). However, the kernel didn't boot on a test system, while the same code built with gcc 4.9 (if I remember correctly) did boot. While I'm not about to remove support for gcc 8, this makes me think that there are some not-so-obvious fixes required to make 3.16 properly compatible with recent gcc versions. So I would rather not continue adding superficial support for them, that may lead to people wasting time building broken kernels. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Theory and practice are closer in theory than in practice - John Levine
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
