Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757008AbcJZRwO (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:52:14 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:54634 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752618AbcJZRwI (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:52:08 -0400 From: Sven Joachim To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Joe Perches , Adam Borowski , Michal Marek , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ben@decadent.org.uk Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: add -fno-PIE References: <20161021111600.9417-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20161021212127.GA32611@angband.pl> <87eg37niky.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> <1477250598.3561.4.camel@perches.com> <8760oinqly.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> <20161024074332.uomcxyhqo6aq7vxk@linutronix.de> <874m41mz4h.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> <20161025073002.czwx2hysib77i7d5@linutronix.de> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 19:51:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20161025073002.czwx2hysib77i7d5@linutronix.de> (Sebastian Andrzej Siewior's message of "Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:30:02 +0200") Message-ID: <87eg33kni0.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:QnpYUGIgg/kOFMyPCzQFFSVwSYoNoM/OujHBo3xFAcENGNKflYZ a9/fPt4oD1Uddxzqw8rjeW2QIjp0Bogbz4HKXSk28lrydDzwE3wsbBmBIvTCIknaF7+/d82 x+Mm3OnqynCOfU/qj8WZL09Z4MWfddE8LLigyFuAD1qBOT5c156NwFrwSyWAeCuUhY/fDOg S4XGJ9NVV7lkkCmvlCZmw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:XWCrmSypC0c=:LTpCBLgguXf6zikULx9iyq ulyYEm1VCriol3dNXql88p5ZepsUbhg8sCXliZZVW++SAUbPczxgyERQIgfG6qvDUyIqFHLzf u2NcbOMpYGbxJaYuVk7/whtG5fc7Be5OcV7LYG0/w8dXIgN8wrQu5XTVA1GYB6KkqWOw3WFP4 lK3NMEymUDbMcAeADXcYM8aq8ZSCPZTPj4Xy4t7rTbZvxaAWtwZSMGDx91+tS4fL2T7fQXobq NmiSr1GFiEKiBKWEWLj1xo62o6jDOf146AviaVxWY1SySaPrnXkvZ+f7IYAxOoenrjRE39UKF w6KFSnVO4JHiHlt6YXlxvBjz9MMy8+WVnCIVYiyrlGiZb8Wh3yhVzenV4WhHs1dBX45OXphsk frSJNNF2YprmFmwd0yye2YUuz5sRj/fukmnlexh9GRwK2WWurDqT6RVgnTVbY1zZwnBhLrPqz FQp+yq255tvsIf1h8S5jI5wQZ5niVcfex90zL4Oa06ul/1D+HEH0avaBhwZD0N0m9Btv7qnrz 1E9SqlZbJCA4Q/IVkUbzVXPxZ1Raz1zEOtwJX44lnOEwmt0kUTu6fLL71lxEPylIaLJvMn8v2 nFohG6Ysot723iaNsIvmayGWWtrgzIggxMQSlxfeP/4IvXCtn8n7WFh2off/XgtXFuZQXnyMV ozK6yVxH5kTL3K50EByH3sL3UVdRsdF9yW9mrifDGeVcx5o8oDwlvij7S/cpHrATcfV153reu tV8vc8RYi+r10ioNiVyoNjTRfbR1LoCQsXEtTwr9CqCPTrnVCFowi5tYQRaDE71SAZLpyIM/J Riz5WW8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1946 Lines: 48 On 2016-10-25 09:30 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-10-24 19:32:30 [+0200], Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2016-10-24 09:43 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> >> > On 2016-10-24 09:38:49 [+0200], Sven Joachim wrote: >> >> >> >> But make still fails with it. :-( >> > >> > try setting CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y and please let me know if >> > the resulting kernel built with v3.2 gcc boots & works. >> >> Sorry, I don't have gcc 3.2 around, and my gcc 3.3 environment produces >> assembler errors in arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S. Maybe binutils 2.15 is >> not recent enough anymore? I have done a few more tests, and I can confirm that binutils 2.17 is the oldest version that works. Also, I have succeeded installing gcc 3.2 in a Debian 4.0 chroot now. > so we use stone age gcc but take latest binutils and kernel? What about > lifting the limit of gcc 3.2? Would probably make sense, since gcc 3.2 cannot compile kernel/bounds.c, at least not on x86. ,---- | CC kernel/bounds.s | In file included from /tmp/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h:512, | from include/linux/bitops.h:22, | from include/linux/kernel.h:10, | from include/asm-generic/bug.h:13, | from /tmp/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:38, | from include/linux/bug.h:4, | from include/linux/page-flags.h:9, | from kernel/bounds.c:9: | /tmp/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h: In function `__arch_hweight32': | /tmp/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h:29: syntax error before string constant | make[1]: *** [kernel/bounds.s] Error 1 `---- Building with gcc 3.3 is apparently still possible, although it produces tons of warnings and a modpost section mismatch. Still, requiring gcc 4.1 or newer would not be unreasonable, I think (still released a few months earlier than binutils 2.17). Cheers, Sven