Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sat, 21 Jun 2003 19:17:05 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning |
| |
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br> wrote: > > Em Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:41:02PM -0500, Chris Wedgwood escreveu: > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:11:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > Humm, I'd love to do that, i.e. to make gcc 3 required, lots of good > > > stuff like this one, anonymous structs, etc, etc, lots of stuff > > > could be done in an easier way, but are we ready to abandon gcc > > > 2.95.*? Can anyone confirm if gcc 2.96 accepts this? > > > > What *requires* 2.96 still? Is it a large number of people or obscure > > architecture? > > I don't know, I was just trying to figure out the impact of requiring gcc 3 > to compile the kernel. I never used gcc 2.96 btw. >
Compared to 2.95.3, gcc-3.3 takes 1.5x as long to compile, and produces a kernel which is 200k larger.
It is simply worthless.
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |