Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:48:49 +0200 (MEST) | From | Mikael Pettersson <> | Subject | Re: RFC: Raise required gcc version to 3.2 ? |
| |
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:00:12 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: >What is the oldest gcc we want to support in kernel 2.6? > >Currently, it's 2.95 . > >I'd suggest raising this to 3.2 which should AFAIK not be a problem for >any distribution supporting kernel 2.6 . > >Is there any good reason why we should not drop support for older >compilers?
You're asking the wrong question. The right question would be: "Is there any good reason to drop support for older compilers?"
At least on i386, gcc-2.95.3 still works and has the advantage of being much faster compile-time wise on older machines with limited memory (like my 486 test box). And I'm not the only one with that POV -- akpm also uses 2.95.
Of course, if keeping 2.95.3 support would somehow hinder the kernel's development, then it should be removed. But so far I haven't seen any real(*) evidence that this is the case.
(*) Moronic code with declarations after statements is not a valid argument against 2.95.
/Mikael - 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/
| |