Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:05:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 01:01:26AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you please apply the following patch then? 
> > > 
> > >  Remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > Thus far I have this:
> 
> Would it be possible to drop support for gcc 3.0 too? 
> AFAIK it has never been widely used. If we assume 3.1+ minimum it has the 
> advantage that named assembly arguments work, which make
> the inline assembly often a lot easier to read and maintain.

3.2+ would be better than 3.1+

Remember that 3.2 would have been named 3.1.2 if there wasn't the C++
ABI change, and I don't remember any big Linux distribution actually 
using gcc 3.1 as default compiler.

And since gcc 3.2 was released one and a half years before kernel 2.6.0, 
I doubt there's any distribution both supporting kernel 2.6 and not 
shipping any gcc >= 3.2 .

> -Andi

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

-
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/