On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 20:44 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
>
> > Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is
> > going to affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if
> > it's the right approach. We introduced GCC 4.8 in wheezy, named
> > gcc-mozilla (a bad name I know) which didn't build these libraries,
> > so it didn't affect the rest of the archive, which was still
> > building with GCC 4.6 or 4.7 (depending on the architecture).
>
> The GCC system libraries should be backwards compatible (and we test
> that extensively with each new Debian release), however I agree that
> this type of change is not what wheezy users expect at this point.
>
> Red Hat has published retpoline-enabled GCC versions based off GCC 4.4
> and 4.8, maybe these would help? It *should* be safe to add the
> subset of the applicable GCC 4.8 to gcc-mozilla (that is, skip the
> aarch64 bits and everything else which is not part of GCC 4.8
> upstream). I don't think there are any conflicts with the stack clash
> protection feature in Red Hat's GCC 4.8.
>
> The other problem is that rebasing the kernel compiler typically
> requires extensive kernel QE because some areas of the kernel really
> stretch what can be done in C.
I've already looked through the Linux commit log for fixes mentioning
gcc 4.{7,8,9}, and these are included in 3.2.101.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered
an expert.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part