Re: [PATCH v5 23/23] xen/README: add compiler and binutils versions for RISC-V64

[Oleksii <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 08:55 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.02.2024 18:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > This patch doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
> > GNU Binutils; rather, these versions are specifically employed by
> > the Xen RISC-V container and are anticipated to undergo continuous
> > testing.
> 
> Up and until that container would be updated to a newer gcc. I'm
> afraid I view this as too weak a criteria, but I'm also not meaning
> to
> stand in the way if somebody else wants to ack this patch in this
> form;
> my bare minimum requirement is now met.
> 
> > --- a/README
> > +++ b/README
> > @@ -48,6 +48,15 @@ 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
> > +        This doesn't represent a strict lower bound for GCC and
> > GNU Binutils;
> > +        rather, these versions are specifically employed by the
> > Xen RISC-V
> > +        container and are anticipated to undergo continuous
> > testing.
> 
> As per above, I think here it really needs saying "at the time of
> writing"
> or recording a concrete date. Furthermore I expect "these versions"
> relates
> to the specifically named versions and particularly _not_ to "or
> later":
> With the criteria you apply, using later versions (or in fact any
> version
> other than the very specific ones used in the container) would be
> similarly
> untested. Much like x86 and Arm don't have the full range of
> permitted
> tool chain versions continuously tested. Plus don't forget that
> distros may
> apply their own selection of patches on top of what they take from
> upstream
> (and they may also take random snapshots rather than released
> versions).
> 
> IOW it is hard for me to see why RISC-V needs stronger restrictions
> here
> than other architectures. It ought to be possible to determine a
> baseline
> version. Even if taking the desire to have "pause" available as a
> requirement, gas (and presumably gld) 2.36.1 would already suffice.
I'll be happy to determine a baseline version and RISC-V doesn't need
stronger restriction that why I wrote: "This patch doesn't represent a
strict lower bound for GCC and GNU Binutils".

Would it be good to use for GCC -> "12.2 or later" and for Binutils ->
"2.36.1 or later"?

I missed that I've pushed RISC-V contrainer without fixing version of
archlinux, so you are right that after container update what I wrote
won't be true, as compiler version might be changed.

Just for clarifying when the version will be agreed, does it mean that
I should use a toolchain with mentioned version in this file and each
time to verify that everything still working with this versions?

~ Oleksii