From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [RFC] minimum gcc version for kernel: raise to gcc-4.3 or 4.6?
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:58:08 +0100
Message-ID: <3679707.TKdvBNIRe2@wuerfel>
User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-34-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUa4j8nxrW=fSJQZok3=mW-FWZWHR=cYS2R0gQUeGHgmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161216105634.235457-1-arnd@arndb.de> <CAMuHMdUa4j8nxrW=fSJQZok3=mW-FWZWHR=cYS2R0gQUeGHgmQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 976
Lines: 21

On Friday, December 16, 2016 4:54:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > Specifically on ARM, going further makes things rather useless especially
> > for build testing: with gcc-4.2, we lose support for ARMv7, EABI, and
> > effectively ARMv6 (as it relies on EABI for building reliably). Also,
> > the number of false-positive build warnings is so high that it is useless
> > for finding actual bugs from the warnings.
> 
> If you start with that activity now, there's indeed a massive amount of
> warnings to look into.
> However, I've been build testing various configs with m68k-linux-gnu-gcc-4.1.2
> and looking at the compiler warnings for years, so I only have to look
> at new warnings.

What's the reason for sticking with gcc-4.1? Does this actually work better
for you than a more recent version, or is it just whatever you installed
when you started the build testing?

	Arnd