Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Kernel Raising Compiler Build Requirement To GCC 4.9

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

  • Linux Kernel Raising Compiler Build Requirement To GCC 4.9

    Phoronix: Linux Kernel Raising Compiler Build Requirement To GCC 4.9

    Linus Torvalds has decided to up the compiler build requirement for the Linux kernel to GCC 4.9...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...equire-GCC-4.9

  • #2
    Those on RHEL/CentOS 7 choosing to use mainline have the ability to use the available DTS packages, which provide the newer toolchains and statically link in the newer symbols. I would be curious what impact that may have on the kernel, if any.

    Cheers,
    Mike

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mroche View Post
      Those on RHEL/CentOS 7 choosing to use mainline have the ability to use the available DTS packages, which provide the newer toolchains and statically link in the newer symbols. I would be curious what impact that may have on the kernel, if any.

      Cheers,
      Mike
      Can't speak to the kernel as there's zero chance RedHat will deploy a RHEL-7 5.x, but on CentOS-7 I use devtoolset-8, with gcc-8.3.1 and friends to match CentOS-8. (There's also a devtoolset-9). I'm mostly C++, and there's just too much C++11 incompatibility in RHEL7's native gcc-4.8.5 to waste any more development time. The devtoolsets are just too convenient, and it's what they're there for.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by pipe13 View Post

        Can't speak to the kernel as there's zero chance RedHat will deploy a RHEL-7 5.x, but on CentOS-7 I use devtoolset-8, with gcc-8.3.1 and friends to match CentOS-8. (There's also a devtoolset-9). I'm mostly C++, and there's just too much C++11 incompatibility in RHEL7's native gcc-4.8.5 to waste any more development time. The devtoolsets are just too convenient, and it's what they're there for.
        They are, and my industry (Animation and VFX) pretty much depends on them. Unless I’m rebuilding an RPM, I usually use the toolsets, and they are absolutely necessary if you need >=C++14, or as you said, better C++11. Though there’s no getting around the use of ABI 0 when it comes to C++ on RHEL unless you link against a self-built libstdc++.

        Edit: I may be incorrect on that. It was certainly the case with DTS 6, but it seems like that changed with the newer toolsets now defaulting to the new ABI. Need to dig deeper on that.

        I’m curious what the ELRepo folks will do, since they do package mainline kernels as they get released.

        Cheers,
        Mike
        Last edited by mroche; 07-08-2020, 07:31 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          This has been an epic journey but I have built gcc 9.2 and glibc 2.25 to replace those 2 components on a CentOS 6 machine. This is not for the faint of heart...

          Comment


          • #6
            I wonder, has anyone successfully built the kernel with tcc?

            Comment


            • #7
              i find it surprising that older gcc releases still have ICE errors, like mentioned in the email. those are top priority bugs for gcc.

              Comment


              • #8
                This seems to have serious implications for the very many Linux operating systems. Quoting from today's press release:
                > "Segmentation summary of global Linux Software report:
                > "Based on leading players, Linux Software market is divided into: Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Novell, Oracle, IBM, RedHat, Microsoft, Samsung, DELL, Google."
                > "Product classification, of Linux Software industry involves- Debian, Fedora, Opensuse, Others"
                https://coleofduty.com/military-news...scape-in-2020/

                Fedora is officially linked to Red Hat. "openSUSE" also uses RPM packages. "Others" seem to be almost forgotten minor players in the Linux world.
                Linux is united by the members of the Open Invention Network (OIN). https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about-us/members/
                Philips, Sony, NEC & Toyota are members, but not considered to be part of the "Linux Software market", according to today's company press release. Perhaps the OIN web site is incorrect, because Dell & Samsung are not mentioned there, nor in the Wikipedia article on OIN.

                > "Open Source Communities and Trademarks: A Reprise", press release from "The Linux Foundation", July 8, 2020
                https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog...rks-a-reprise/

                This last web link is still trying to define what is meant by open source. The situation seems so uncertain, so far. How open source is the "leading players of Linux"? So much attention is given to Huawei, its shareholders, its national legal obligations, and its patents. Should all members of the Linux industries also be confined legally by the determinations of Linus & "The Linux Foundation". So "the compiler build requirement for the Linux kernel to GCC 4.9", means that avoiding this requirement is no longer Linux.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What about the more recent? GCC 7 or better? They're upto v10...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
                    i find it surprising that older gcc releases still have ICE errors, like mentioned in the email. those are top priority bugs for gcc.
                    only for still supported versions

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X