Re: [PATCH v3 34/34] xen/README: add compiler and binutils versions for RISC-V64

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

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 <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  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