Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well

[David Weinehall <david@southpole.se>]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:13:36AM +0200, Markus Hästbacka wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Weinehall wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:28:30AM +0000, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> > ...
> > > Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it
> > > be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any
> > > other latest gcc. At the same time,  also make it remain compliant to
> > > gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3
> > > on the ftp)  Is this work worth while?
> >
> > Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember
> > correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to
> > generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc.
> > It might be that I remember this incorrectly though.
> >
> only the module-code? :)

Well, I do remember that I did spend a few weeks getting the 2.0-tree to
compile with gcc-3.2, and most problems arose when dealing with the
module-code.  I think I gave up there.

> > It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some
> > degree that no new bugs are introduced.
> >
> That would probably be impossible to do without introducing any bugs..

Mmmm.

> > My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy
> > up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
> >
> Sounds great, a bit amazing that 2.0 is alive again :)

Oh, it's not been dead, as much as laying dormant.


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/