Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning

["Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>]

--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.