Re: [PATCH] Raise the minimum GCC version to 5.2
From: Alexander Dahl <hidden>
Date: 2021-05-04 05:31:02
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kbuild, linux-riscv, linuxppc-dev, lkml
Hello Arnd, Am Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:25:21AM +0200 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alexander Dahl [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Desktops and servers are all nice, however I just want to make you aware, there are embedded users forced to stick to older cross toolchains for different reasons as well, e.g. in industrial environment. :-) This is no show stopper for us, I just wanted to let you be aware.Can you be more specific about what scenarios you are thinking of, what the motivations are for using an old compiler with a new kernel on embedded systems, and what you think a realistic maximum time would be between compiler updates?
One reason might be certification. For certain industrial applications like support for complex field bus protocols, you need to get your devices tested by an external partner running extensive test suites. This is time consuming and expensive. Changing the toolchain of your system then, would be a massive change which would require recertification, while you could argue just updating a single component like the kernel and building everything again, does not require the whole testing process again. Thin ice, I know.
One scenario that I've seen previously is where user space and kernel are built together as a source based distribution (OE, buildroot, openwrt, ...), and the compiler is picked to match the original sources of the user space because that is best tested, but the same compiler then gets used to build the kernel as well because that is the default in the build environment.
One problem we actually ran into in BSPs like that (we build with ptxdist, however build system doesn't matter here, it could as well have been buildroot etc.) was things* failing to build with newer compilers, things we could not or did not want to fix, so staying with an older toolchain was the obvious choice. *Things as in bootloaders for an armv5 platform.
There are two problems I see with this logic: - Running the latest kernel to avoid security problems is of course a good idea, but if one runs that with ten year old user space that is never updated, the system is likely to end up just as insecure. Not all bugs are in the kernel.
Agreed.
- The same logic that applies to ancient user space staying with an ancient compiler (it's better tested in this combination) also applies to the kernel: running the latest kernel on an old compiler is something that few people test, and tends to run into more bugs than using the compiler that other developers used to test that kernel.
What we actually did: building recent userspace and kernel with older toolchains, because bootloader. I know, there are several possibilities to solve this kind of lock: - built bootloader with different compiler - update bootloader - … As said before, this is no problem for me now, I can work around it, but to give an idea what could keep people on older toolchains. Greets Alex