On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:37:31PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:22:34PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > This patch should _not_ go into Linus' tree.
> > >
> > > At some time in the future, we want to unconditionally enable REGPARM on
> > > i386.
> > >
> > > Let's give it a bit broader testing coverage among -mm users.
> >
> > iirc problem is that gcc 2.95 and possibly 3.0.x have some known
> > miscompilations with regparams. That is why it was only used
> > with fastcall for a long time. One 3.1.x+ it should be safe.
> > But you cannot express dependencies on the compiler version
> > in Kconfig right now.
> >
> > Of course getting rid of gcc 2.95 and 3.0.x support would be a good idea,
> > that would allow many other nice things.
>
> If you'd read either arch/i386/Makefile or the help text for
> CONFIG_REGPARM, you'd have noticed that we do never use regparm with
> gcc < 3.0 .
Yes, this means you cannot have binary compatible kernels compiled
with different compilers. Which might be a bad thing. For that
reason alone I would keep the config.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
