From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261383AbVHBFxY (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 01:53:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261384AbVHBFxY (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 01:53:24 -0400 Received: from willy.net1.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:41999 "EHLO willy.net1.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261383AbVHBFxS (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 01:53:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 07:37:39 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] remove support for gcc < 3.2 Message-ID: <20050802053739.GA20363@alpha.home.local> References: <20050731222606.GL3608@stusta.de> <20050801030145.GE20899@kurtwerks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050801030145.GE20899@kurtwerks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 11:01:45PM -0400, Kurt Wall wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:26:07AM +0200, Adrian Bunk took 109 lines to write: > > This patch removes support for gcc < 3.2 . > > > > The advantages are: > > - reducing the number of supported gcc versions from 8 to 4 [1] > > allows the removal of several #ifdef's and workarounds > > - 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 > > > > My personal opinion about the time and space a compilation requires is > > that this is no longer that much of a problem for modern hardware, and > > in the worst case you can compile the kernels for older machines on more > > recent machines. > > Environments that require kernel compilation, often multiple times, > testing, benefit from shorter compile times. It can be the difference > between, say, completing a test suite overnight instead of having to > wait until tomorrow afternoon. Keeping 2.95, at least, has some value > in such environments. I *do* still use 2.95 a lot, and I'm not alone, judging from people around me. 2.95 has been the reference for a very long time, that's why it's still so much present. 3.0 and 3.1 (even 3.2) have been there for a very short time frame, but 2.95 and 3.3 really seem to be references compilers. So please keep support for 2.95. Cheers, Willy