Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:43:52 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning |
| |
--Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> wrote (on Saturday, June 21, 2003 19:17:05 -0700):
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br> wrote: >> >> Em Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:41:02PM -0500, Chris Wedgwood escreveu: >> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:11:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >> > >> > > Humm, I'd love to do that, i.e. to make gcc 3 required, lots of good >> > > stuff like this one, anonymous structs, etc, etc, lots of stuff >> > > could be done in an easier way, but are we ready to abandon gcc >> > > 2.95.*? Can anyone confirm if gcc 2.96 accepts this? >> > >> > What *requires* 2.96 still? Is it a large number of people or obscure >> > architecture? >> >> I don't know, I was just trying to figure out the impact of requiring gcc 3 >> to compile the kernel. I never used gcc 2.96 btw. >> > > Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and produces a > kernel which is 200k larger. > > It is simply worthless.
Agreed. 2.95.4 is also still the default debian compiler. Requiring 3.x seems like a bad plan, until they get it to a point where it's actually better than 2.95, stable, and widely distributed. It's definitely not there yet (seems kind of stable, but not the others).
M.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |