Message-ID: <4011AC22.8050903@planet.nl>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:20:02 +0100
From: Stef van der Made <svdmade@planet.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20040116
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: gcc 2.95.3
References: <20040123145048.B1082@beton.cybernet.src> <20040123100035.73bee41f.jeremy@kerneltrap.org> <20040123151340.B1130@beton.cybernet.src> <001b01c3e1ca$26101f20$1e00000a@black> <20040123163008.B1237@beton.cybernet.src> <1074882836.20723.4.camel@minerva>
In-Reply-To: <1074882836.20723.4.camel@minerva>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1011
Lines: 29

Matthew Reppert wrote:

>snip
>  
>

>Many people have been using gcc-3.2 or later to build kernels, and I
>haven't really heard of any problems with this, at least on i386. I
>personally have used 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 (well, with Debian's patches) and
>haven't had any weirdness with 2.6 or 2.4. ISTR there being arches that
>need 3.x to compile, but I could be mistaken.
>
>2.95.3 is definitely the *oldest* compiler you'd want to use, and pretty
>much skip between that and 3.2.
>
>Matt
>  
>
Same here. I've been using gcc3.2.0 and beyond currently 3.3.2 since the 
day they were released and never had any big issues. I would recomend 
using gcc 3.3.2 since it improves performance when using optimizations 
quite a bit as far as I can remember the statistics.

Stef
-
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/