Messages in this thread | | | From | Segher Boessenkool <> | Subject | Re: RFC: drop support for gcc < 4.0 | Date | Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:08:33 +0200 |
| |
>>> 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 works when compiled with gcc 4.2" will most likely be lost > in the big pile of unhandled bugs, not cause the removal of gcc 3.2 > support...
While that might be true, it's a separate problem.
>> The only other policy than "only remove support if things are >> badly broken" would be "only support what the GCC team supports", >> which would be >= 4.1 now; and there are very good arguments for >> supporting more than that with the Linux kernel. > > No, it's not about bugs in gcc, it's about kernel+gcc combinations that > are mostly untested but officially supported.
What does "officially supported" mean? Especially the "officially" part. Is this documented somewhere?
> E.g. how many kernel developers use kernels compiled without > unit-at-a-time? And unit-at-a-time does paper over some bugs, > e.g. at about half a dozen section mismatch bugs I've fixed > recently are not present with it.
If any developer is interested in supporting some certain old compiler version, he should be testing regularly with it. Sounds like that's you ;-)
If no developer is interested, we shouldn't claim to support using that compiler version.
> But as the discussions have shown gcc 4.0 is currently too high for > making a cut, and it is not yet the right time for raising the minimum > required gcc version.
Agreed.
Segher
- 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/
| |