Re: RFC: drop support for gcc < 4.0

Adrian Bunk
2007-08-21T22:10:56Z

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:49:38PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 23:21 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 10:49:49PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > >> 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.
> >
> > One bug report "kernel doesn't work / crash / ... when compiled with
> > gcc 3.2, but works when compiled with gcc 4.2" will most likely be lost
> > in the big pile of unhandled bugs, not cause the removal of gcc 3.2
> > support...
>
> What's the bugzilla or pointer to this report please? Those of us who
> use gcc-3 as the default kernel compiler will take it seriously (if it
> looks to have an impact to our kernel builds) otherwise we can tell you
> it's unreproducible/not a problem etc.

This was an example in response to Segher's point we would remove
support for a gcc version in such a case.

I remember we had such issues, but I don't find any pointer to a
specific one at the moment.

I'll keep you informed when bug reports come in that only occur with
older gcc versions and that aren't easily fixable.

> James

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