Storage: Remove support for ARM Compiler 5

[hugueskamba]

Summary of changes

ARM Compiler 5 is no longer actively supported and was superseded in
Mbed OS by ARM Compiler 6.

Impact of changes

Breaking change: The binary generated from ARM Compiler 5 cannot be relied on as support has been dropped.

Migration actions required

Use Arm Compiler 6.

Documentation

N/A

---

Pull request type

[] Patch update (Bug fix / Target update / Docs update / Test update / Refactor)
[] Feature update (New feature / Functionality change / New API)
[X] Major update (Breaking change E.g. Return code change / API behaviour change)

---

Test results

[] No Tests required for this change (E.g docs only update)
[X] Covered by existing mbed-os tests (Greentea or Unittest)
[] Tests / results supplied as part of this PR

---

Reviewers

@SeppoTakalo

---

[ciarmcom]

@hugueskamba, thank you for your changes.
@SeppoTakalo @ARMmbed/mbed-os-storage @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

[mbed-ci]

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 6 of 6 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

[SeppoTakalo]

What is the benefit of doing this?

LittleFS might be used on other projects using Arm C 5..
We should not actively try to prevent people using it, even if OS does not support it anymore.

[hugueskamba]

What is the benefit of doing this?

LittleFS might be used on other projects using Arm C 5..
We should not actively try to prevent people using it, even if OS does not support it anymore.

Hi @SeppoTakalo ,

Based on this comment, no further changes will be made on this PR. Please remove the change request if you do not have any other comment.
Thanks

ok

[0xc0170]

@hugueskamba As littlefs as well si out of this tree, shall this be closed?

[hugueskamba]

@hugueskamba As littlefs as well si out of this tree, shall this be closed?

@0xc0170 , I believe the decision was made to allow the PR as is (#12699 (comment)).
@evedon Can you confirm?

[evedon]

@hugueskamba As littlefs as well si out of this tree, shall this be closed?

@0xc0170 , I believe the decision was made to allow the PR as is (#12699 (comment)).
@evedon Can you confirm?

We should try to simplify the code base and remove dead code as much as possible. An exception could be made but given that Seppo is okay with the PR, I think it should go ahead.

[0xc0170]

OK, will clear statuses and restart CI later

[0xc0170]

CI started

[mbed-ci]

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 1 of 6 test jobs failed
Build number : 2
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

• jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_greentea-test

[0xc0170]

CI restarted

[mbed-ci]

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 6 of 6 test jobs passed
Build number : 3
Build artifacts