Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2022 10:37:21 -0600
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: gcc 5 & 6 & others already out of date?
Message-ID: <Y0g+wTTJmlaFVLzr@zx2c4.com>
References: <CAHmME9prBJHmo9Bw6aobuGLjtxLsjxKJ9wopOv5+BY6ZtuKaNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y0gLyLbdOCetX5LN@sirena.org.uk>
 <Y0gteD0QYVlYxSZh@zx2c4.com>
 <Y0g8HEYHZYHGdwlf@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y0g8HEYHZYHGdwlf@sirena.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 05:26:04PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't upgrade our requirements at all,
> just that I'm worrying about going from one extreme to the other in
> terms of version requirements - it feels like there's a step change when
> you move from things you can get in current release distros people are
> likely to be using to things that will require a large proportion of
> people to install extra stuff.  At the minute we're more at the other
> end where it can be hard to figure out who'd even have the oldest
> versions we support without deliberately seeking them out and keeping
> them going is noticably making work for people.

Regarding "one extreme to the other", I suspect that in spite of my
arguments, which would seem to justify an extreme, the actual thing I
suggested is a bit more moderate: let's support the latest 2 or 3 gccs
at the time of kernel release. If we choose 3, that's roughly 3 years of
gccs, right? 3 years seems like a fairly long amount of time.

Jason