On 23.01.2024 15:49, Oleksii wrote: > On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 12:22 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 22.12.2023 16:13, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> Changes in V3: >>> - new patch >>> --- >>> README | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/README b/README >>> index c8a108449e..1015a285c0 100644 >>> --- a/README >>> +++ b/README >>> @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ provided by your OS distributor: >>> - For ARM 64-bit: >>> - GCC 5.1 or later >>> - GNU Binutils 2.24 or later >>> + - For RISC-V 64-bit: >>> + - GCC 13.2.1 or later >>> + - GNU Binutils 2.40 or later >> >> That's pretty new. For gcc that's even newer than the newest release. >> If older versions really won't do, I don't think you can leave this >> unjustified (by having an empty description). Till now gcc 13.2 has >> served me well, and iirc 13.1, 12.3, and 12.2 were fine, too. > It can be 12.2.0 for GCC and 2.39 for GNU Binutils. ( it is toolchain > which is used by contrainer for RISC-V in Xen ). I'll update versions > then. > > But could you please explain again why it can't be 13.2.1 ( it is a > version which I have in my distribution, so it is the reason why I used > this version in README file ) ?
13.2.1 is a pre-release of 13.3.0. Only versions ending in .0 are upstream released versions these days. And I think it would be helpful if the minimum version also was the first in a major-version series, i.e. I'd generally prefer naming <N>.1.0 (or <N>.1 for simplicity; see Arm's entry). Of course if no such suitable version exists (because of being buggy), then specifying another one is okay. As to x.y.1 - nobody will then really know which version it is, because every distro will ship its own variant. Jan
