Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kernel Developers Still Discussing Raising Linux's Compiler Requirements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kernel Developers Still Discussing Raising Linux's Compiler Requirements

    Phoronix: Kernel Developers Still Discussing Raising Linux's Compiler Requirements

    Linux kernel developers are still looking to raise the requirements of GCC for building the Linux kernel...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Who uses that GCC 4.1? RHEL 5 on Extended Support i guess or maybe these who does not like GPL3 or something...

    So instead of GCC 4.3+ It is easier to say "we require GPL3+ compilers"
    Last edited by dungeon; 25 April 2017, 08:09 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      They should raise the minimum GCC version after every LTS kernel ...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lumks View Post
        They should raise the minimum GCC version after every LTS kernel ...
        Minumum is whatever works, but people should keep in mind what is recommended actually that is GCC 4.9 nothing less and nothing more

        Comment


        • #5
          Is there any real reason why they couldn't move the requirement all the way up to some version of GCC 5 while they're at it? I mean 5.0 that came out almost exactly 2 years ago so you'd think that there wouldn't be any problems unless developers are maintaining architectures have have been dropped at some point between whatever version of 4 they're using and 5.

          Comment


          • #6
            The minimal should be gcc 4.9 and clang 3.9, or why not say C11 minimum?
            EDIT: and for me the arch maintener should update the compiler.
            Developer of Ultracopier/CatchChallenger and CEO of Confiared

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
              Is there any real reason why they couldn't move the requirement all the way up to some version of GCC 5 while they're at it? I mean 5.0 that came out almost exactly 2 years ago so you'd think that there wouldn't be any problems unless developers are maintaining architectures have have been dropped at some point between whatever version of 4 they're using and 5.
              He, he, it is not question there when something is released - it is not driven by time, but what works and what does not

              Minumum means what does not break on most used architecture and recommended is what works for most architectures. So GCC 4.9 is version of compiler with least amount of issues so recommended, otherwise use whatever works for you Lucky Luke you know
              Last edited by dungeon; 25 April 2017, 09:23 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dungeon View Post

                Minumum is whatever works, but people should keep in mind what is recommended actually that is GCC 4.9 nothing less and nothing more
                Unfortunately, minimum also dictates what feature you can use

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bug77 View Post

                  Unfortunately, minimum also dictates what feature you can use
                  Even the Linux kernel isn't all that fond of change... because change most often means bloat unless proven otherwise. The bleeding edge is bloody for a reason... there is nothing unfortunate about being able to use older gcc versions, while also supporting the checks in newer compilers it's plain old good common sense. I doubt anyone writing production code is willing to let random people just translate it into C11 without testing.

                  Also, a lot of the features added in c11 don't work on all architectures eg atomics have been problematic in the past. What works in one revision of GCC may take several more revisions to get stable everywhere.
                  Last edited by cb88; 25 April 2017, 09:38 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Gentoo devs/maintainers are (of course) somewhat reluctant when it comes to new compilers declared as stable in e.g. x86 and amd64. GCC 5.x was just "released" recently to stable, til then we had 4.7.x for a long time and then 4.8 and 4.9 (and most are available in slot installations where you can select between versions). One can even have some old 3.x slot and (masked) currently even a 2.x, just in case something will only work with an old compiler version.
                    I once had to use a bleeding edge GCC for a relatively new CPU at that time (VIA C3-2, don't laugh!) and it was okay, but maybe I was just lucky.
                    So I can understand that sometimes people tend to stick to a version that just works for them.
                    Stop TCPA, stupid software patents and corrupt politicians!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X