From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: initialization of static per-cpu variables
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:59:37 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080602075937.GA29836@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200805252035.24535.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:35:24PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Saturday 24 May 2008 00:29:04 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 06:20:06PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Yep, it was an old toolchain used by Sparc: DaveM found this one. As you
> > > say, it's ancient: I'm happy to queue a cleanup patch now everyone is on
> > > a modern compiler.
> >
> > The commit says:
> >
> > GCC3.1 apparently gets confused about uninitialized sections
> >
> > We do still support gcc 3.2 (which is the same as 3.1 except for a C++
> > ABI change) as a compiler for the kernel.
>
> Adrian, that's a little silly. There are obviously bug fixes in 3.2 over
> 3.1.0.
I've checked the announcements of 3.1.1 and 3.2, and at least for me
nothing looked like it would fix this bug.
> Noone has complained about the introduction of multiple other cases
> which would screw things up if they experienced this bug.
I doubt there is any serious userbase for gcc 3.2 left.
But your "now everyone is on a modern compiler" does not match what we
announce as supported compiler versions for the kernel.
If you have a good reason for pushing the minimum required gcc version
for compiling the kernel to 3.3 or 3.4 [1] you have my full support, but
as long as we officially support gcc 3.2 we should try to break as few
as possible - especially since it will take time until anyone will run
into any breakage.
> Finally, it's a sparc64 problem and DaveM acked already.
Was it a sparc64 problem or a generic problem DaveM happened to run into
on sparc?
> That's half the userbase!
sparc64 isn't that unpopular...
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
Sorry if I'm sounding overly pedantic, but I want that what we try as
good as possible that what we announce as being supported also works
(even if this results in several workarounds shipped).
cu
Adrian
[1] gcc 3.4 still has a serious userbase at least in ARM country, so you
won't be able to drop support for it
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-02 8:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-21 18:28 Vegard Nossum
2008-05-22 8:20 ` Rusty Russell
2008-05-22 16:12 ` David Miller
2008-05-23 14:29 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-05-23 14:43 ` Vegard Nossum
2008-05-25 10:35 ` Rusty Russell
2008-06-02 7:59 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2008-06-02 23:11 ` Rusty Russell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080602075937.GA29836@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi \
--to=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=vegard.nossum@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®