Does anyone care about gcc 3.x support for *x86* anymore?
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: ehea: make receive irq handler non-threaded (IRQF_NODELAY)
Next: [PATCH 3/4] scheduler: cpuacct: Enable platform callbacks for cpuacct power tracking
From: H. Peter Anvin on 18 May 2010 21:30 [Reposting as a separate thread] Recently, we have seen an increasing number of problems with gcc 3.4 on x86; mostly due to poor constant propagation producing not just bad code but failing to properly eliminate what should be dead code. I'm wondering if there is any remaining real use of gcc 3.4 on x86 for compiling current kernels (as opposed to residual use for compiling applications on old enterprise distros.) I'm specifically not referring to other architectures here -- most of these issues have been in relation to low-level arch-specific code, and as such only affects the x86 architectures. Other architectures may very well have a much stronger need for continued support of an older toolchain. If there isn't a reason to preserve support, I would like to consider discontinue support for using gcc 3 to compile x86 kernels. If there is a valid use case, it would be good to know what it is. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Ingo Molnar on 19 May 2010 03:20 (reposted with Andrew and Linus Cc:-ed too) * H. Peter Anvin <hpa(a)zytor.com> wrote: > [Reposting as a separate thread] > > Recently, we have seen an increasing number of problems > with gcc 3.4 on x86; mostly due to poor constant > propagation producing not just bad code but failing to > properly eliminate what should be dead code. > > I'm wondering if there is any remaining real use of gcc > 3.4 on x86 for compiling current kernels (as opposed to > residual use for compiling applications on old > enterprise distros.) I'm specifically not referring to > other architectures here -- most of these issues have > been in relation to low-level arch-specific code, and as > such only affects the x86 architectures. Other > architectures may very well have a much stronger need > for continued support of an older toolchain. > > If there isn't a reason to preserve support, I would > like to consider discontinue support for using gcc 3 to > compile x86 kernels. If there is a valid use case, it > would be good to know what it is. > > -hpa > > -- > H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center > I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Andi Kleen on 19 May 2010 09:40 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa(a)zytor.com> writes: > > If there isn't a reason to preserve support, I would like to consider > discontinue support for using gcc 3 to compile x86 kernels. If there is > a valid use case, it would be good to know what it is. I suspect there are still distributions around that use it as a standard compiler. Wasn't it used in some major release of Debian? -Andi -- ak(a)linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: H. Peter Anvin on 19 May 2010 10:10 On 05/19/2010 06:38 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa(a)zytor.com> writes: >> >> If there isn't a reason to preserve support, I would like to consider >> discontinue support for using gcc 3 to compile x86 kernels. If there is >> a valid use case, it would be good to know what it is. > > I suspect there are still distributions around that use it as a standard > compiler. Wasn't it used in some major release of Debian? > > -Andi There are, but that doesn't mean it's relevant for people to compile bleeding-edge kernels with it. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Justin P. Mattock on 19 May 2010 18:50
On 05/19/2010 07:08 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/19/2010 06:38 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> "H. Peter Anvin"<hpa(a)zytor.com> writes: >>> >>> If there isn't a reason to preserve support, I would like to consider >>> discontinue support for using gcc 3 to compile x86 kernels. If there is >>> a valid use case, it would be good to know what it is. >> >> I suspect there are still distributions around that use it as a standard >> compiler. Wasn't it used in some major release of Debian? >> >> -Andi > > There are, but that doesn't mean it's relevant for people to compile > bleeding-edge kernels with it. > > -hpa > no need for it here(using 4.6.0).. Any distro still using this version should upgrade(but who am I to say anything) cheers. Justin P. Mattock -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |