On 31/05/2024 7:18 am, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 30.05.2024 21:52, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 29/05/2024 8:55 pm, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> diff --git a/README b/README >>> index c8a108449e..30da5ff9c0 100644 >>> --- a/README >>> +++ b/README >>> @@ -48,6 +48,10 @@ 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 12.2 or later >>> + - GNU Binutils 2.39 or later >> I would like to petition for GCC 10 and Binutils 2.35. >> >> These are the versions provided as cross-compilers by Debian, and >> therefore are the versions I would prefer to do smoke testing with. > See why I asked to amend the specified versions by a softening sentence that > you (only now) said you dislike? The "this is what we use in CI" makes it a > very random choice, entirely unrelated to the compiler's abilities.
"what's in CI" is an arbitrary choice, and that's *explicitly* fine and the right choice for Oleksii to have made. He's got the hard job of making the damn thing work in the first place. Requiring him to also go and get some old compilers to backdate the support statement is unreasonable for you to demand. In this case, I'm saying that it would be convenient for *me* if the numbers were older, because that's what *I* have and what *I'm* wanting to testing with. This means that I'm the one taking on the responsibility of playing backwards-compatibility-roulette. Now, for other reasons I no longer have those versions, but one of the 3 bugs I raises is still a real bug needing fixing. ~Andrew
