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
Joe wrote:
I'm for its removal. As for the gcc project "losing its way" consider
that 3.4 has quite matured and also has much smaller binary size from
3.3. 4.0 however is still too early in its development to come close
to surpassing 3.4.
I consider that the compiler get bigger and slower wit
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 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]) (
I'm for its removal. As for the gcc project "losing its way" consider
that 3.4 has quite matured and also has much smaller binary size from
3.3. 4.0 however is still too early in its development to come close
to surpassing 3.4.
With all the changes and deprications it seems pointless to have to
ma
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 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
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 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 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, 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 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 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
[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
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
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
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
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 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
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 the
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
