Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760712AbYGBBoR (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:44:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757590AbYGBBoB (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:44:01 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:33665 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751917AbYGBBoA (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:44:00 -0400 Message-ID: <486ADC8C.5010404@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:40:28 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Travis CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "Eric W. Biederman" , Christoph Lameter , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Jack Steiner Subject: Re: [crash, bisected] Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86_64: Fold pda into per cpu area References: <20080604003018.538497000@polaris-admin.engr.sgi.com> <485ACD92.8050109@sgi.com> <485AD138.4010404@goop.org> <485ADA12.5010505@sgi.com> <485ADC73.60009@goop.org> <485BDB04.4090709@sgi.com> <485BE80E.10209@goop.org> <485BF8F5.6010802@goop.org> <485BFFC5.6020404@sgi.com> <486912C4.8070705@sgi.com> <48691556.2080208@zytor.com> <48691E8B.4040605@sgi.com> <48694B3B.3010600@goop.org> <486A61A7.1000902@zytor.com> <486A68DD.80702@goop.org> <486A9D4F.8010508@goop.org> <486AA72B.6010401@goop.org> <486AC9D9.9030506@zytor.com> <486AD6BD.9080600@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <486AD6BD.9080600@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1459 Lines: 31 Mike Travis wrote: > > One interesting thing I've discovered is the gcc --version may make a > difference. > > The kernel panic that occurred from Ingo's config, I was able to replicate > with GCC 4.2.0 (which is on our devel server). But this one complained > about not being able to handle the STACK-PROTECTOR option so I moved > everything to another machine that has 4.2.4, and now it seems that it > works fine. I'm still re-verifying that the source bits and config options > are identical (it was a later git-remote update), and that in fact it is > the gcc --version, but that may be the conclusion. (My code also has some > patches submitted but not yet included in the tip/master tree. Curiously > just enabling some debug options changed the footprint of the panic.) > > Are we allowed to insist on a specific level of GCC for compiling the > kernel? > Yes, but certainly not anything even close to that recent -- I think right now we're supposed to support back to 3.2-something overall; specific architectures might have more stringent requirements. There are a couple of gcc versions known to miscompile there kernel that we don't support; I don't know if 4.2.0 is one of them. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/