From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261739AbVG1RHU (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:07:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261757AbVG1RHN (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:07:13 -0400 Received: from graphe.net ([209.204.138.32]:6851 "EHLO graphe.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261739AbVG1RFa (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:05:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: christoph@graphe.net To: Adrian Bunk cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: Raise required gcc version to 3.2 ? In-Reply-To: <20050728120012.GB3528@stusta.de> Message-ID: References: <20050728120012.GB3528@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -5.8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, 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 . You have all my support for this. Some weird macros and code could be removed from the tree. F.e. One could use [] instead of [0] and there is a baaad macro in include/linux/mmzone.h in need of some healing touches. > Is there any good reason why we should not drop support for older > compilers? Probably but we should drop support anyways.