Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 19:17:05 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: cw@f00f.org, torvalds@transmeta.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
       alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, perex@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Isapnp warning
Message-Id: <20030621191705.3c1dbb16.akpm@digeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030622014345.GD10801@conectiva.com.br>
References: <20030621125111.0bb3dc1c.akpm@digeo.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0306211652130.1980-100000@home.transmeta.com>
	<20030622001101.GB10801@conectiva.com.br>
	<20030622014102.GB29661@dingdong.cryptoapps.com>
	<20030622014345.GD10801@conectiva.com.br>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1093
Lines: 28

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/