On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 09:41:51 -0700 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 11:41:12AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > > > > x86 already requires gcc-8.1 since linux-6.15-rc1, which led me to > > actually go through all version checks and make this is the minimum > > for all architectures. > > > > Most of the actual resulting changes are actually for raising the > > binutils version, which eliminates version checks on x86 and arm64. > > > > Arnd Bergmann (4): > > kbuild: require gcc-8 and binutils-2.30 > > raid6: skip avx512 checks > > x86: remove checks for binutils-2.30 and earlier > > arm64: drop binutils version checks > > This is intended to supersede the patches from Uros that removed checks for > binutils < 2.25, right? See: > > * https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20250404074135.520812-1-ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx/ > * https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20250404074135.520812-2-ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx > * https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20250404074135.520812-3-ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx/ > > If we can indeed bump up the requirement to 2.30, that would be great. > > Just a note though: I recently added VAES and VPCLMULQDQ instructions to > BoringSSL, which increased the binutils requirement of building BoringSSL to > 2.30, and this caused issues in a downstream project; e.g. see > https://github.com/briansmith/ring/issues/2463. Specifically people complained > about being unable to build on Amazon Linux 2 and CentOS/RHEL/Oracle Linux 7. Just tell them RHEL 7 is no longer supported :-) (Was a right PITA installing an extra package on a CentOS 7 system we use as a build machine...) In any case it is relatively easy to install a later gcc - even though it ends up in a very obscure place. David > > So I just thought I'd mention that, based on past experience with this sort of > thing, those are the specific cases where it seems people are most likely to be > trying to use binutils < 2.30. > > But if those distros are not going to be supported any longer (without > installing newer tools on them), or even are already unsupported due to the gcc > requirement, bumping up the binutils requirement to 2.30 sounds good to me. > > - Eric >
