From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:34:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from p3EE2BD6B.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:62.226.189.107]:59218 "EHLO mail.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:34:43 +0000 Received: from fluff.linux-mips.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linux-mips.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1EIYf7i004678; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:34:41 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by fluff.linux-mips.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j1EIYfP0004677; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:34:41 +0100 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:34:41 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux Message-ID: <20050214183441.GA4263@linux-mips.org> References: <20050214035304Z8225242-1340+3175@linux-mips.org> <20050214153435.GD806@linux-mips.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 7252 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:06:51PM +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > Bulletproofing 2.4 against newer tools is something that only makes limited > > sense, especially wrt. to gcc 3.4 and newer. Chances for any such changes > > to be accepted upstream are slim - and the kernel has traditionally been > > easily affected by overoptimization, so I recommend against gcc 3.4. The > > recommended compiler for 2.4 is still gcc 2.95.3 but except gcc 3.0 upto > > gcc 3.3 is reasonable and can be considered well tested. > > I do agree in general, but given that the construct I've used has been > supported by gas since 1995, there is no point in keeping our code broken. > And binutils actually quite rarely trigger problems with Linux, while > they've got improved significantly with the last few releases; unlike with > GCC it's normally a good idea to use the latest version of binutils. I wasn't objecting to your patch; it's just that I expect some users to upgrade to a recent binutils and gcc at the same time and that has good chances to end up in a nice firework ;-) Ralf