On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 10:18 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > 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? I think that backporting gcc-4.9 and building the kernel with it (for x86) is lower risk than backporting the retpoline patches to gcc-4.7 and building the kernel with that. (In fact it's not just the kernel; if you change gcc-4.7 that has the potential to affect most updates to wheezy, even though use of retpoline should be disabled by defaul.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings [W]e found...that it wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. ... I realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be spent in finding mistakes in my own programs. - Maurice Wilkes, 1949
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part