On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:41:18 +0000 "Sven C. Dack" <sven.c.d...@sky.com> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:07:03 -0500 "S. R. Wright" <srw6...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree with Eric; while the workaround is to back rev the gcc and its > > associated packages, I also build kernels straight from kernel.org, > > usually within hours of their availability and this has been working for > > me for many years, and it is not sufficient to justify this change by > > saying doing so "isn't a good idea." A change of functionality of this > > scope warrants a minor version number increase, this change was not > > merely a bug fix. > > > > As the kernel is the most important code gcc is ever likely to compile > > on debian or any other distro for that matter, this change should be > > backed out, and not reintroduced UNTIL the *official* kernel source is > > ready for it. > > > > -- sRw > > I'm seeing the same failure and agree with the above statements. > > Please note that a vanilla gcc-6 can compile a vanilla kernel, and so should > Debian's gcc-6. > > Sven C. >
To add to this, enabling -fpie and -fPIE per default for *ALL* compilations can only be a mistake.
Position independent code when generated with -fpic, -fPIC, -fpie or -fPIE, is commonly slower (by 3%-5%) than normal code. Enabling it as the default for everything will certainly lead to a performance regression for the entire Debian distribution and beyond.
Sven C.
