From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id RA27NRcU7mRZqQ0AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 11:51:51 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=q1lVrRUb; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id D15FB1E0C2; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 11:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C32AE1E092 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 11:51:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9E13858407 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 15:51:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4F9E13858407 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1693324309; bh=85LBWjmAZdsvSckn4n4sxsyH5M0P+sKKXzutnIjg5NQ=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=q1lVrRUb+pGhePw0xvbQlQk5mcawpAllLv84+WDoFTtjE0NuXQ5zi0HfE5OWFA0Hn j/ue8f3CZCx52/PCeFuG9Tx/WN6FgqbEdthMx0lfKreUrwrbcGXV3zx9Zkv7ZmK+xQ m9QOLLOqdIFNCj1gQl63ggF3muu8BEi1Le4e94lk= Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6313D3858D20; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 15:50:32 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6313D3858D20 Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1bc63ef9959so35127615ad.2; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 08:50:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693324231; x=1693929031; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=85LBWjmAZdsvSckn4n4sxsyH5M0P+sKKXzutnIjg5NQ=; b=CqBtPfnTgcdA51nT5P3zzhYRfKM+K8TZcsl2WfTmKypiAtp5gg9JV+pEtcx42y6u// mxSImmFykxyiR0B06y48ULWBEQF0mEA/JI4FKFCGfIstIaFSzsGr20GJtosz9p9MUwJ5 2Q9Vlx1+k7uhxOwzbxemZs4uT0GiHOiWbm+e8Xrli5gtH4CRu1vDxCL4CPAko+WXRzOI OZvHTjeT599+Db6tWzjwxI8fD4v4IImT9PxABqX+GhbhqpAZt6RV1MO184B8Xe219Gqy +8hVL+C5Cro+YF+iKihCtaofI3jerj/KTJFmfwAteczcKjxMFLS1pWhG4QerN1HzXNiB eUcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyZevySIaP614f36fP+d6cM+0RhlHyj9JFPBFoH52bsQWXEzNqt Tp8vRqFZ5WXKg0uixoMNcoxuU4BDFqS+NqSdDso= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGCm0lUXrONnMUUR0JQbIuVBKaoK2voreGAFbYT1CdkT0RUL882q/gK+ss1dW85oH4qmLGv69oyyG+sYLz8k5A= X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:244e:b0:1c0:d777:3224 with SMTP id l14-20020a170903244e00b001c0d7773224mr15722365pls.50.1693324231454; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 08:50:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87wmxd50xj.fsf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 23:50:20 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Top level configure: Require a minimum version 6.8 texinfo To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Nick Clifton , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: YunQiang Su via Gdb-patches Reply-To: YunQiang Su Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > I think that is too new. > We still allow building gcc e.g. with GCC 4.8 from ~ 10 years ago and > I think various boxes where people regularly build gcc will have similarly > old other tools. > So, bumping requirement from ~ 20 years old tools to ~ 10 years old tools > might be ok, but requiring ones at most 2 years old will be a nightmare, I agree. Lots of toolchains distributed by CPU vendors are supposed to support CentOS 6, or at least 7.