On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 23:21 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 10:49:49PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> How many people e.g. test -rc kernels compiled with gcc 3.2? > > > > Why would that matter? It either works or not. If it doesn't > > work, it can either be fixed, or support for that old compiler > > version can be removed. > > One bug report "kernel doesn't work / crash / ... when compiled with > gcc 3.2, but works when compiled with gcc 4.2" will most likely be lost > in the big pile of unhandled bugs, not cause the removal of gcc 3.2 > support...
What's the bugzilla or pointer to this report please? Those of us who use gcc-3 as the default kernel compiler will take it seriously (if it looks to have an impact to our kernel builds) otherwise we can tell you it's unreproducible/not a problem etc. James > > The only other policy than "only remove support if things are > > badly broken" would be "only support what the GCC team supports", > > which would be >= 4.1 now; and there are very good arguments for > > supporting more than that with the Linux kernel. > > No, it's not about bugs in gcc, it's about kernel+gcc combinations that > are mostly untested but officially supported. > > E.g. how many kernel developers use kernels compiled without > unit-at-a-time? And unit-at-a-time does paper over some bugs, > e.g. at about half a dozen section mismatch bugs I've fixed > recently are not present with it. > > But as the discussions have shown gcc 4.0 is currently too high for > making a cut, and it is not yet the right time for raising the minimum > required gcc version. > > > Segher > > cu > Adrian > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
