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
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 bod
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 th
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
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 y
[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
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 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 i3
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 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
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 cause
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 longe
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 b
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 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 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
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?
http://gcc.gn
21 matches
Mail list logo
