Re: Better communication about spectre/meltdown
On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 02:31:20PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 07:56 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > Of course, if this looks like it would be substantially more complex, I
> > will again ask for guidance, but the likely course at that point seems
> > to implement the necessary option parsing in gcc 4.6.
> >
> > I suppose another possibility would be to backport the patches to gcc
> > 4.7 instead of 4.6 and switch the kernel build to gcc 4.7. Would that be
> > considered to introduce less risk than bringing gcc 4.9 into wheezy at
> > this stage?
>
> Unless you're experienced in gcc development, I would guess that using
> the existing patches for gcc 4.9 is lower risk.
>
Your meaning here is not clear to me. I am not experienced in gcc
development and I have observed that the code is exceptionally complex.
That is why I want to make sure to ask for and receive guidance from
those who are more experienced in this area.
Do you mean to say that applying the gcc 4.9 patches to gcc 4.7 in
wheezy is the lower risk approach, or that backporting gcc 4.9 to wheezy
is lower risk?
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: