From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265104AbUE2PqM (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 May 2004 11:46:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265211AbUE2PqM (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 May 2004 11:46:12 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]:40924 "EHLO sccrmhc11.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265104AbUE2PqF (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 May 2004 11:46:05 -0400 Message-ID: <40B8A161.5040306@kegel.com> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 07:42:41 -0700 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, de-de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Bradford , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Recommended compiler version Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org John B. wrote: > Quote from Adrian Bunk : >> Whether support for gcc 2.95 should be dropped is a discussion for 2.7. > > Is there any single 3.x.x version of GCC that's actively in use by a large > number of core developers? How do we make a sensible recommendation if not? As an aside, it seems like gcc-3.3.3 is pretty good. There are some known problems with it, but the number is small. I haven't tried gcc-3.4.0 much yet, but I have seen a few kernel patches to fix issues 3.4.0 found in the kernel source. I agree 2.6 should continue to support and compile correctly under gcc-2.95.3, even if that means working around compiler bugs. By the time linux-2.7 rolls around, I suspect nobody will mind if we drop 2.95.3 in favor of 3.4.x. It'll be interesting to see if newer gccs optimize the kernel better... - Dan -- My technical stuff: http://kegel.com My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change