From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:34118 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751415AbXHUUIq (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:08:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:08:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: RFC: drop support for gcc < 4.0 In-Reply-To: <20070821195433.GE30705@stusta.de> Message-ID: 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Andi Kleen , Randy Dunlap , Andrew Morton , Jarek Poplawski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > Bogus warnings should be relatively harmless. > > How many kernel developers use such old gcc versions? It's NOT about "kernel developers". It's about random people testing kernels. If we make it harder for people to test kernels, we're going to lose. So no, I vote for *not* cutting off old gcc versions unless it's absolutely fatal. Linus