From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:32:04 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation Message-ID: <20051213223203.GV23349@stusta.de> References: <20051212161944.3185a3f9.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213075441.GB6765@elte.hu> <20051213075835.GZ15804@wotan.suse.de> <20051213004257.0f87d814.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213084926.GN23384@wotan.suse.de> <20051213010126.0832356d.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213090517.GQ23384@wotan.suse.de> <20051213221810.GU23349@stusta.de> <20051213222543.GY23384@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051213222543.GY23384@wotan.suse.de> To: Andi Kleen Cc: Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu, dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, arjan@infradead.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:25:43PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > 3.2+ would be better than 3.1+ > > > > Remember that 3.2 would have been named 3.1.2 if there wasn't the C++ > > ABI change, and I don't remember any big Linux distribution actually > > using gcc 3.1 as default compiler. > > Yes, but the kernel doesn't use C++ and afaik other than that there were only > a few minor bugfixes between 3.1 and 3.2. So it doesn't make any > difference for this special case. gcc 3.2.3 is four bugfix releases and nine months later than 3.1.1, and there are virtually no gcc 3.1 users. It's not a strong opinion, but if the question is whether to draw the line before or after gcc 3.1 I'd vote for dropping gcc 3.1 support. > -Andi cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed