From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262011AbVGaWlB (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:41:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262027AbVGaWin (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:38:43 -0400 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:52956 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262017AbVGaWgf (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:36:35 -0400 Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20050731.153631.70217457.davem@davemloft.net> To: bunk@stusta.de Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20050731222606.GL3608@stusta.de> References: <20050731222606.GL3608@stusta.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Adrian Bunk Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 00:26:07 +0200 > - my impression is that the older compilers are only rarely > used, so miscompilations of a driver with an old gcc might > not be detected for a longer amount of time Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest way to get a kernel build done and that's important for many people. And with 4.0 being a scary regression in the compile time performance area compared to 3.4, this becomes even more important to keep around.