Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:17:27 +0100 | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well |
| |
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:13:36AM +0200, Markus Hästbacka wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Weinehall wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:28:30AM +0000, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote: > > ... > > > Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it > > > be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any > > > other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to > > > gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3 > > > on the ftp) Is this work worth while? > > > > Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember > > correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to > > generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc. > > It might be that I remember this incorrectly though. > > > only the module-code? :)
Well, I do remember that I did spend a few weeks getting the 2.0-tree to compile with gcc-3.2, and most problems arose when dealing with the module-code. I think I gave up there.
> > It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some > > degree that no new bugs are introduced. > > > That would probably be impossible to do without introducing any bugs..
Mmmm.
> > My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy > > up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc. > > > Sounds great, a bit amazing that 2.0 is alive again :)
Oh, it's not been dead, as much as laying dormant.
Regards: David -- /) 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/
| |