Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757530AbdLQUHJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:07:09 -0500 Received: from mail-ot0-f176.google.com ([74.125.82.176]:38761 "EHLO mail-ot0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757336AbdLQUHI (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:07:08 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovGw6zb0M3etOO4K6JXhRRKLXpgMyBySN/yUxmuMt8qPfT6pawN4AQF7YhMv7a/0MbvkSmbzV7qxFQqWeB/JY0= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171217204122.0a10a5e1@jawa> References: <20171116232239.16823-1-lukma@denx.de> <20171211233625.5689-1-lukma@denx.de> <1513153607.2439.2.camel@Nokia-N900> <20171217204122.0a10a5e1@jawa> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:07:06 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xpoThPc4UlFK4EswE0MCh5IyvxI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board To: Lukasz Majewski Cc: Alexander Sverdlin , Linus Walleij , Hartley Sweeten , Russell King , Linux ARM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Olof Johansson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1154 Lines: 27 On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >> >> We also need to think about upholding support in GCC for >> >> ARMv4(t) for the foreseeable future if there is a big web of >> >> random deeply embedded systems out there that will need >> >> updates. >> > >> > But we should definitely preserve at least what we have. >> >> Plain ARMv4 (and earlier) support in gcc is already marked >> 'deprecated' and will likely be gone in gcc-8 (it's still there as of >> last week). ARMv4T is going to be around for a while, and you can >> even keep building for ARMv4 using "-march=armv4t -marm" when linking >> with 'ld --fix-v4bx'. > > I think that we shall start complaining on the gcc-devel mailing list > now. > > I would be hard to wake up in 2 years time and realise that we don't > have a modern compiler. What distro or build system are you using? It would also be helpful to test whether the -march=armv4t/--fix-v4bx workaround produces working binaries for you, in that case you could report to the gcc developers that the removal of armv4 can continue but that the --fix-v4bx option in ld needs to stay around. Arnd