On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:41:04PM -0300, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> Last time I tried a mips build, it would fail the compile unless I was
> using _exactly_ 3.4.4 (I didn't tried older versions, but did try
> 3.4.6, for ex.). So I also think the 3.4 series will still have to be
> around f
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:10:16AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Aug 22 2007 10:08, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:57:04AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 21 2007 23:41, Oliver Pinter wrote:
> >> >I think it's bad idea, when removing support for gcc3.x, w
* Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-22 09:57]:
> >I think it's bad idea, when removing support for gcc3.x, while some
> >people using debian 3.1 at now and under debian 3.1 the default
> >comiler is 3.3.5, when I good know or not!?
> They always lag behind.
Debian 4.0 has GCC 4.1 as the
Hi,
On 22/08/07, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 22 2007 10:08, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:57:04AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 21 2007 23:41, Oliver Pinter wrote:
> >> >I think it's bad idea, when removing support for gcc3.x, while s
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:41:04PM -0300, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> On 8/21/07, Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > > Are there any architectures still requiring a gcc < 4.0 ?
> >
> > Yes, sadly in some places (
On Aug 22 2007 10:08, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:57:04AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 21 2007 23:41, Oliver Pinter wrote:
>> >I think it's bad idea, when removing support for gcc3.x, while some
>> >people using debian 3.1 at now and under debian 3.1 the defaul
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:57:04AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Aug 21 2007 23:41, Oliver Pinter wrote:
> >I think it's bad idea, when removing support for gcc3.x, while some
> >people using debian 3.1 at now and under debian 3.1 the default
> >comiler is 3.3.5, when I good know or not!?
>
On Aug 21 2007 23:41, Oliver Pinter wrote:
>I think it's bad idea, when removing support for gcc3.x, while some
>people using debian 3.1 at now and under debian 3.1 the default
>comiler is 3.3.5, when I good know or not!?
They always lag behind.
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:32:50PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > How many people e.g. test -rc kernels compiled with gcc 3.2?
>
> How could anybody know?
It shouldn't be so hard:
a) statistically: by doing some random math with:
int number
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:08:33AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>How many people e.g. test -rc kernels compiled with gcc 3.2?
I confirm gcc version:
~/src/linux-2.6.23-rc3$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-slackware-linux/3.2.3/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.2.3/configure
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> It is an option to say "gcc >= 4.0 on i386 and >= 3.4 on all other
> architectures is required".
if you're going to do something like that, you might as well take
the extra step and start keeping track of which versions of gcc work
with which architectu
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 w
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:49:38PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> 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
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 s
Hi all!
I think it's bad idea, when removing support for gcc3.x, while some
people using debian 3.1 at now and under debian 3.1 the default
comiler is 3.3.5, when I good know or not!?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTE
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
On 8/21/07, Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Last time I tried a mips build, it would fail the compile unless I was
> > using _exactly_ 3.4.4 (I didn't tried older versions, but did try
> > 3.4.6, for ex.).
>
> If 3.4.4 works where 3.4.6 doesn't, you should report this as a
> bug;
Last time I tried a mips build, it would fail the compile unless I was
using _exactly_ 3.4.4 (I didn't tried older versions, but did try
3.4.6, for ex.).
If 3.4.4 works where 3.4.6 doesn't, you should report this as a
bug; either here, or to the GCC team (but please be aware that the
3.4 series
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.
The only other policy than "only remove support if things are
badly broken" would be
On 8/21/07, Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Are there any architectures still requiring a gcc < 4.0 ?
>
> Yes, sadly in some places (embedded) there are people with older
> compiler who want newer kernels.
Last time I t
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> How many people e.g. test -rc kernels compiled with gcc 3.2?
How could anybody know?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:08:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >
> > > Bogus warnings should be relatively harmless.
> >
> > How many kernel developers use such old gcc versions?
>
> It's NOT about "kernel developers".
>
> It's about random p
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > Bogus warnings should be relatively harmless.
>
> How many kernel developers use such old gcc versions?
It's NOT about "kernel developers".
It's about random people testing kernels.
If we make it harder for people to test kernels, we're going t
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:19:59PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Obviously a gcc <= 3.4 [1], and therefore no unit-at-a-time.
>
> Actually there are widely used 3.3 variants that support unit-at-a-time
> (e.g. 3.3-hammer which was shipp
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Are there any architectures still requiring a gcc < 4.0 ?
Yes, sadly in some places (embedded) there are people with older
compiler who want newer kernels.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
t
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:54:53PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:31:03AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:20:38 +0200 Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here are some more of, probab
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:54:53PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> I want to keep support for gcc 3.4.3 for ARM for the forseeable future.
> From my point of view, gcc 4 compilers have been something of a development
> thing as far as the ARM architecture goes. Also, gcc 3.4.3 is faster and
> signifi
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Obviously a gcc <= 3.4 [1], and therefore no unit-at-a-time.
Actually there are widely used 3.3 variants that support unit-at-a-time
(e.g. 3.3-hammer which was shipped by several distributions for some time)
There are still a lot of s
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:35:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:31:03AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:20:38 +0200 Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > > Here are some more of, probably well-known, warnings with attached
> > > testing-only .config.
> > >.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:31:03AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:20:38 +0200 Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> > Here are some more of, probably well-known, warnings with attached
> > testing-only .config.
> >...
> > drivers/pci/msi.c:686: warning: weak declaration of `arch_msi_chec
30 matches
Mail list logo
