Re: RFC: Raise required gcc version to 3.2 ?

[Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@csd.uu.se>]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:00:12 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>What is the oldest gcc we want to support in kernel 2.6?
>
>Currently, it's 2.95 .
>
>I'd suggest raising this to 3.2 which should AFAIK not be a problem for 
>any distribution supporting kernel 2.6 .
>
>Is there any good reason why we should not drop support for older 
>compilers?

You're asking the wrong question. The right question would be:
"Is there any good reason to drop support for older compilers?"

At least on i386, gcc-2.95.3 still works and has the advantage
of being much faster compile-time wise on older machines with
limited memory (like my 486 test box). And I'm not the only
one with that POV -- akpm also uses 2.95.

Of course, if keeping 2.95.3 support would somehow hinder the
kernel's development, then it should be removed. But so far I
haven't seen any real(*) evidence that this is the case.

(*) Moronic code with declarations after statements is not a
valid argument against 2.95.

/Mikael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/