Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:56:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:55:38 -0500 Received: from TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp ([210.143.35.51]:63900 "EHLO TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:54:57 -0500 To: "J.A. Magallon" Cc: Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: struct inode size reduction. References: <20030309135402.GB32107@suse.de> <20030309224552.GA3047@werewolf.able.es> <20030310001129.GB13869@suse.de> <20030309235934.GA3962@werewolf.able.es> Reply-To: Miles Bader System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop From: Miles Bader Date: 10 Mar 2003 14:04:57 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20030309235934.GA3962@werewolf.able.es> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 811 Lines: 13 "J.A. Magallon" writes: > That was my point, I do not know if some arch still requires 2.95 in 2.6. > For 2.4, it states 2.95.3 as minimun. Even if no arch `requires' gcc 2.95 (I don't really know, though until recently my arch didn't even _have_ a [working] gcc 3.x port!), there are certainly a buttload of people _using_ it to build the kernel, so requiring gcc 3.2, would be kind of obnoxious. -Miles -- Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest? - 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/