Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:09:02 +0100 | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: Which gcc version? |
| |
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:35:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > At 20:14 23/11/01, Andrew Morton wrote: > > >Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > > > > > If there is a performance hit, it's not enough to worry about. > > > > > >except egcs-1.1.2 (2.91.6) compiles stuff at almost twice the speed > > >of gcc3. The person who breaks egcs-1.1.2 for kernel builds owes > > >me a quad Xeon, thanks very much. > > > > Have you read the current Documentation/Changes? It says "the 2.5 tree is > > likely to drop egcs-1.1.2 workarounds". Whoever wrote that seems to be > > wanting to break it in the near future... > > Well that's great news. To whom do I send my shipping address? > > Actually, I have negligible interest in working on something which > won't be useful to real people for three years, so that works out, > doesn't it?
Dropping workarounds for egcs-1.1.2 doesn't mean that gcc-2.95.3+ or gcc-2.96-x (x > whatever the infamed version nr was) will stop working.
Thus, there's a perfectly fine alternative to gcc3. gcc3 is too broken to use on many platforms. Then again, it's the only alternative for others... Sigh.
As long as gcc-2.95.3 is the recommended minimum version, I'm happy.
Regards: David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </ - 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/
|  |