From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: philb@gnu.org (Philip Blundell)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox),
junio@siamese.dhis.twinsun.com, manuel@mclure.org (Manuel McLure),
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.3-ac12
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:10:41 +0100 (BST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E14rJdU-0005p0-00@the-village.bc.nu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E14rJTP-0005jL-00@kings-cross.london.uk.eu.org> from "Philip Blundell" at Apr 22, 2001 02:00:19 PM
> Are you being deliberately obtuse? 2.97+ snapshots do all support
> builtin_expect, which is what we were discussing.
I think we are having different conversations here.
The only valid inputs to the question are
Recommended
-----------
egcs-1.1.2 (miscompiles strstr <2.4.4pre)
gcc 2.95.* (miscompiles strstr <2.4.4pre)
Recommended (for -ac at least)
------------------------------
rh-gcc 2.96-69+ (DAC960 fails due to gcc ABI change)
rh-gcc 2.96-78+
For the Brave
-------------
gcc 3.0 snapshots
There are no gcc 2.97 snapshots that compile the kernel correctly because
they have the broken bitfield packing ABI change.
So if your belief is that we should insist on gcc 3.0 for __builtin_expect
then we should simply remove use of it completely. For 2.5.x it will be worth
making heavy use of once gcc 3.0 is out.
My belief however is that several million people have gcc 2.96-69+, about 50
are likely to have random cvs snapshots and none of them are going to build
kernels with them anyway, as they wont work __builtin_expect or otherwise.
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-04-22 13:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-04-22 2:53 Linux 2.4.3-ac12 Alan Cox
2001-04-22 4:17 ` Manuel McLure
2001-04-22 5:47 ` junio
2001-04-22 6:07 ` junio
2001-04-22 10:42 ` Philip Blundell
2001-04-22 12:26 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-22 12:43 ` Philip Blundell
2001-04-22 12:54 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-22 13:00 ` Philip Blundell
2001-04-22 13:10 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2001-04-22 13:22 ` Russell King
2001-04-22 13:29 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-22 16:12 ` Jes Sorensen
2001-04-22 16:30 ` Mohammad A. Haque
2001-04-22 17:27 ` Roman Zippel
2001-04-22 17:43 ` Jes Sorensen
2001-04-22 18:42 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-23 6:54 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2001-04-22 13:51 ` Philip Blundell
2001-04-22 12:11 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-22 12:18 ` Russell King
2001-04-22 12:51 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-22 12:55 ` John Jasen
2001-04-22 13:00 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-22 8:57 ` Eyal Lebedinsky
2001-04-22 12:20 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-22 13:04 ` Eyal Lebedinsky
2001-04-22 16:25 ` John Cavan
2001-04-22 17:07 ` Manuel McLure
2001-04-22 18:48 ` Alan Cox
2001-04-22 18:57 ` Manuel McLure
2001-04-22 18:59 ` Linux 2.4.3-ac12 unresolved symbol rwsem J Sloan
2001-04-23 0:19 ` Linux 2.4.3-ac12 John Cavan
2001-04-23 8:35 ` Byeong-ryeol Kim
2001-04-23 22:18 ` Byeong-ryeol Kim
2001-04-22 22:46 ` Mr. James W. Laferriere
2001-04-22 13:48 f5ibh
2001-04-22 14:03 ` Jesper Juhl
2001-04-22 17:26 Dieter Nützel
2001-04-22 19:53 ` J . A . Magallon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E14rJdU-0005p0-00@the-village.bc.nu \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=junio@siamese.dhis.twinsun.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manuel@mclure.org \
--cc=philb@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).