On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a
> > current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too.
>
> What bug exactly?
On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386 and use a
current GCC, you'll run into that fun, too.
What bug exactly?
On Fri, 2005-08-12 09:40:18 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo
> > cpu : VAX
> > cpu type: KA43
> > cpu sid : 0x0b06
> > cpu sidex : 0x04010002
> > page size :
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo
> > cpu : VAX
> > cpu type: KA43
> > cpu sid : 0x0b06
> > cpu sidex : 0x04010002
> > page size : 4096
> > BogoMIPS: 10.08
> > -sh-3.00# cat version
> > Linux version 2.6.12
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> -sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo
> cpu : VAX
> cpu type: KA43
> cpu sid : 0x0b06
> cpu sidex : 0x04010002
> page size : 4096
> BogoMIPS: 10.08
> -sh-3.00# cat version
> Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
-sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo
cpu : VAX
cpu type: KA43
cpu sid : 0x0b06
cpu sidex : 0x04010002
page size : 4096
BogoMIPS: 10.08
-sh-3.00# cat version
Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
-sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo
cpu : VAX
cpu type: KA43
cpu sid : 0x0b06
cpu sidex : 0x04010002
page size : 4096
BogoMIPS: 10.08
-sh-3.00# cat version
Linux version 2.6.12 ([EMAIL
On Fri, 2005-08-12 09:40:18 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
-sh-3.00# cat cpuinfo
cpu : VAX
cpu type: KA43
cpu sid : 0x0b06
cpu sidex : 0x04010002
page size : 4096
BogoMIPS
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200
- my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely
used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might
not be detected for a longer amount of time
Many people still use 2.95
David S. Miller wrote:
From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200
- my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely
used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might
not be detected for a longer amount of time
Many people still use 2.95
On Monday 01 August 2005 01:36, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200
>
> > - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely
> > used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might
> > not be detected for a
On Monday 01 August 2005 01:36, David S. Miller wrote:
From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200
- my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely
used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might
not be detected for a longer amount
On Fri, 2005-08-05 23:30:04 +0200, Martin Drab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > init/main.c:212: error: __setup_str_quiet_kernel causes a section type
> > conflict
> > init/main.c:220: error: __setup_str_loglevel causes a section type conflict
> > init/main.c:298: error: __setup_str_init_setup
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > >...
> > > Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We
> > > had
On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >...
> > Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We
> > had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug
On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
...
Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We
had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug
in
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-04 22:38:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
...
Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We
had -fno-unit-at-a-time
On Fri, 2005-08-05 23:30:04 +0200, Martin Drab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
init/main.c:212: error: __setup_str_quiet_kernel causes a section type
conflict
init/main.c:220: error: __setup_str_loglevel causes a section type conflict
init/main.c:298: error: __setup_str_init_setup causes a
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>...
> Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We
> had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug
> in kernel's sources.
>
> I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from
On Thu, 2005-08-04 11:34:27 +1000, Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/1/05, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 .
> >
> > The advantages are:
> > - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
> > allows the removal of
On Thu, 2005-08-04 11:34:27 +1000, Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/1/05, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 .
The advantages are:
- reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
allows the removal of several #ifdef's
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 08:54:47AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
...
Current GCC from CVS (plus minor configury patches) seems to work. We
had -fno-unit-at-a-time missing in our arch Makefile which hides a bug
in kernel's sources.
I guess that if you remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from i386
On 8/1/05, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 .
>
> The advantages are:
> - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
> allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds
> - my impression is that the older compilers are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gustavo Guillermo Pérez) writes:
> Please keep the 2.95 support I use to use a lot, on not new hardware.
> If you have old hardware with not much resources gcc 2.95 works just fine and
> fast, even you build the main kernel on other machine, by compatibility
> issues one or
El Domingo, 31 de Julio de 2005 17:26, escribió:
> This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 .
> [1] support removed: 2.95, 2.96, 3.0, 3.1
Please keep the 2.95 support I use to use a lot, on not new hardware.
If you have old hardware with not much resources gcc 2.95 works just fine and
fast, even
El Domingo, 31 de Julio de 2005 17:26, escribió:
This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 .
[1] support removed: 2.95, 2.96, 3.0, 3.1
Please keep the 2.95 support I use to use a lot, on not new hardware.
If you have old hardware with not much resources gcc 2.95 works just fine and
fast, even you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gustavo Guillermo Pérez) writes:
Please keep the 2.95 support I use to use a lot, on not new hardware.
If you have old hardware with not much resources gcc 2.95 works just fine and
fast, even you build the main kernel on other machine, by compatibility
issues one or two
On 8/1/05, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 .
The advantages are:
- reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds
- my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely
On Mon, 2005-08-01 00:26:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 .
>
> The advantages are:
> - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
> allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds
[...]
> [1] support removed:
On Mon, 2005-08-01 00:26:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 .
The advantages are:
- reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds
[...]
[1] support removed: 2.95,
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 11:01:45PM -0400, Kurt Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Adrian Bunk took 109 lines to write:
> > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 .
> >
> > The advantages are:
> > - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
> > allows
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 11:01:45PM -0400, Kurt Wall wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Adrian Bunk took 109 lines to write:
This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 .
The advantages are:
- reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
allows the removal
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 .
Go away.
-miles
--
"Suppose He doesn't give a shit? Suppose there is a God but He
just doesn't give a shit?" [George Carlin]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Adrian Bunk took 109 lines to write:
> This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 .
>
> The advantages are:
> - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
> allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds
> - my impression is
Hi.
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 08:36, David S. Miller wrote:
> Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest
> way to get a kernel build done and that's important for
> many people.
Yes, please don't remove 2.95 support.
Regards,
Nigel
--
Evolution.
Enumerate the requirements.
Consider
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200
> - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely
> used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might
> not be detected for a longer amount of time
Many people still use 2.95 because it's still
This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 .
The advantages are:
- reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds
- my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely
used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old
This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 .
The advantages are:
- reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds
- my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely
used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc
From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200
- my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely
used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might
not be detected for a longer amount of time
Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the
Hi.
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 08:36, David S. Miller wrote:
Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest
way to get a kernel build done and that's important for
many people.
Yes, please don't remove 2.95 support.
Regards,
Nigel
--
Evolution.
Enumerate the requirements.
Consider
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Adrian Bunk took 109 lines to write:
This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 .
The advantages are:
- reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1]
allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds
- my impression is that the
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This patch removes support for gcc 3.2 .
Go away.
-miles
--
Suppose He doesn't give a shit? Suppose there is a God but He
just doesn't give a shit? [George Carlin]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
42 matches
Mail list logo
