From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:38115 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751412AbXHUUuh (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:50:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070821202113.GF30705@stusta.de> References: <20070821132038.GA22254@ff.dom.local> <20070821093103.3c097d4a.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20070821173550.GC30705@stusta.de> <20070821191959.GC2642@bingen.suse.de> <20070821195433.GE30705@stusta.de> <20070821202113.GF30705@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <27c412eea99f1f80a3002e9668bd31f8@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: RFC: drop support for gcc < 4.0 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:49:49 +0200 Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Bunk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Jarek Poplawski , Andi Kleen , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap List-ID: > How many people e.g. test -rc kernels compiled with gcc 3.2? Why would that matter? It either works or not. If it doesn't work, it can either be fixed, or support for that old compiler version can be removed. The only other policy than "only remove support if things are badly broken" would be "only support what the GCC team supports", which would be >= 4.1 now; and there are very good arguments for supporting more than that with the Linux kernel. Segher