Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 4.19 Raises The GCC Minimum Version Required To Build The Kernel

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

  • c117152
    replied
    Originally posted by flower View Post
    err... i have read that list. that's why i thought it's only useful for kernel developers.
    but where did you get from that it helps in getting closed source stuff in the kernel?
    Who said "it helps in getting closed source stuff in the kernel"? The issue is compilers and architectures (i.e. heavy silicon). Lets skip the explanation and give an example: Ever heard of Microsoft's new EDGE ISA and their E2 CPUs? Thing is, they use LLVM to target linux and develop it in secret. When market release arrives, nothing will stop them from releasing only the bare essential compiler patches but with the full kernel patches so they'd technically be considered "open-source" but you'd never EVER use anything but the kernels they compile since the performance would be atrocious.

    Google and Apple similarly develop new ISAs and cores and use LLVM for that same purpose. Google will probably still release the compiler stack when they reach the market. Apple... Not so much.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post
    More low iq troll content from Duby:



    Insults.



    Swearing and failure to acknowledge his own shortcomings.



    More swearing and he now appears to believe that he knows what everyone here reading this thread is thinking. He thinks that he doesn't just speak for himself, but that he speaks for everyone here. That may be narcissism. It may an attempt at creating an argumentum ad populum fallacious argument. Or perhaps it could just be described as psychosis.



    A continuation of his previous train of thought. He shows that he believes that he knows what I understand and do not understand (as well as everyone else here).

    He ends his reply by making an unsupported statement that his "argument is in fact directly relevant". This is akin to an upset child shouting back to an adult "NO! I am right!"
    Moron... Your own argument is retarded and inherently wrong and so you spend this time exercising your superiority complex analysing me... That's fine, stupid, but fine..

    Leave a comment:


  • caligula
    replied
    Originally posted by linuxjacques View Post

    Many times, especially on non-x86 archs, I have tried to build the kernel with a too new version of GCC and failed.

    In case it wasn't clear, I meant the maximum version of GCC which will build the kernel which's docs I am reading.
    The kernel compiles just fine with gcc 7 and 8. Also runs. At least on ARMv6 and ARMv7.

    Leave a comment:


  • cybertraveler
    replied
    More low iq troll content from Duby:

    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    You smelled it you dealt it dumbass.
    Insults.

    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    Is every fucking thing a strawman to you?
    Swearing and failure to acknowledge his own shortcomings.

    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    Whether you understand your own argument is completely irrelevant, the fact is -WE- all can read what you said and understand what the fuck you meant by it.
    More swearing and he now appears to believe that he knows what everyone here reading this thread is thinking. He thinks that he doesn't just speak for himself, but that he speaks for everyone here. That may be narcissism. It may an attempt at creating an argumentum ad populum fallacious argument. Or perhaps it could just be described as psychosis.

    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    Call my last post a strawman all you want, the fact is you don't even understand your own argument, and my argument is in fact directly relevant.
    A continuation of his previous train of thought. He shows that he believes that he knows what I understand and do not understand (as well as everyone else here).

    He ends his reply by making an unsupported statement that his "argument is in fact directly relevant". This is akin to an upset child shouting back to an adult "NO! I am right!"

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post
    If you want to see an example of a low iq troll, look at duby's response to my post:

    He says:



    Please note, that I didn't say otherwise. So he presents a strawman argument.

    Please also note that even his strawman is badly selected as GCC is the most popular compiler used in GNU/Linux distros and for better or worse (probably worse) AutoTools is probably the most popular build system.

    More interesting stuff from him:



    'tools'

    Is he referring to the GNU Build Tools? Is this another strawman? Who would claim that you could make a complete operating system out of the GNU Build Tools? I certainly didn't and wouldn't.

    Perhaps he meant to say: 'It isn't even possible to make a desktop linux with just the GNU software'. Well even this would be a strawman, because for starters, I never claimed you could. I claimed that GNU + Linux results in an operating system. Secondly, in my post that this low iq troll responded to, I even mentioned that you might also need Mesa to make a working desktop OS out of GNU + Linux; thus acknowledging there might be some pieces missing.



    ... and the final strawman. He states that as if it proves a point. It doesn't. I pointed out in my post that he responded to that Android is a Linux distribution made without GNU.
    You smelled it you dealt it dumbass. Is every fucking thing a strawman to you? Whether you understand your own argument is completely irrelevant, the fact is -WE- all can read what you said and understand what the fuck you meant by it. Call my last post a strawman all you want, the fact is you don't even understand your own argument, and my argument is in fact directly relevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • cybertraveler
    replied
    If you want to see an example of a low iq troll, look at duby's response to my post:

    He says:

    Originally posted by duby229 View Post

    There are plenty of other toolchains in use right now. The GNU tools are fairly complete collection that a lot of people like and that's the reason why it get's used, but it damn sure isn't the only toolchain that get's used on a desktop linux.
    Please note, that I didn't say otherwise. So he presents a strawman argument.

    Please also note that even his strawman is badly selected as GCC is the most popular compiler used in GNU/Linux distros and for better or worse (probably worse) AutoTools is probably the most popular build system.

    More interesting stuff from him:

    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    It isn't even possible to make a desktop linux with just the GNU tools,
    'tools'

    Is he referring to the GNU Build Tools? Is this another strawman? Who would claim that you could make a complete operating system out of the GNU Build Tools? I certainly didn't and wouldn't.

    Perhaps he meant to say: 'It isn't even possible to make a desktop linux with just the GNU software'. Well even this would be a strawman, because for starters, I never claimed you could. I claimed that GNU + Linux results in an operating system. Secondly, in my post that this low iq troll responded to, I even mentioned that you might also need Mesa to make a working desktop OS out of GNU + Linux; thus acknowledging there might be some pieces missing.

    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    but it is for damn sure possible to make one without them...
    ... and the final strawman. He states that as if it proves a point. It doesn't. I pointed out in my post that he responded to that Android is a Linux distribution made without GNU.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by linuxjacques View Post

    Many times, especially on non-x86 archs, I have tried to build the kernel with a too new version of GCC and failed.

    In case it wasn't clear, I meant the maximum version of GCC which will build the kernel which's docs I am reading.
    If the newest gcc fails to build the newest kernel then it's a bug and should be reported appropriately.

    EDIT: One of the best things about open source is that you can contribute to test coverage.
    Last edited by duby229; 21 August 2018, 12:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • linuxjacques
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post

    Huh? The maximum version will always be the git branch. Think about it, there is no maximum, gcc is constantly being developed and at any moment of time the newest version is the git tree.
    Many times, especially on non-x86 archs, I have tried to build the kernel with a too new version of GCC and failed.

    In case it wasn't clear, I meant the maximum version of GCC which will build the kernel which's docs I am reading.
    Last edited by linuxjacques; 21 August 2018, 12:24 PM. Reason: added clarification

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by linuxjacques View Post
    In addition to minimum GCC version, I wish the kernel docs would list maximum GCC version.
    Huh? The maximum version will always be the git branch. Think about it, there is no maximum, gcc is constantly being developed and at any moment of time the newest version is the git tree.

    Leave a comment:


  • linuxjacques
    replied
    In addition to minimum GCC version, I wish the kernel docs would list maximum GCC version.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X