From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265472AbTFVDa2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:30:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265473AbTFVDa2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:30:28 -0400 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:36021 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265472AbTFVDa1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jun 2003 23:30:27 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:43:52 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Andrew Morton , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo cc: cw@f00f.org, torvalds@transmeta.com, geert@linux-m68k.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, perex@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning Message-ID: <90770000.1056253431@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <20030621191705.3c1dbb16.akpm@digeo.com> References: <20030621125111.0bb3dc1c.akpm@digeo.com><20030622001101.GB10801@conectiva.com.br><20030622014102.GB29661@dingdong.cryptoapps.com><20030622014345.GD10801@conectiva.com.br> <20030621191705.3c1dbb16.akpm@digeo.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Andrew Morton wrote (on Saturday, June 21, 2003 19:17:05 -0700): > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 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.