Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262444AbUKDVsZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:48:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262448AbUKDVsZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:48:25 -0500 Received: from brown.brainfood.com ([146.82.138.61]:17544 "EHLO gradall.private.brainfood.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262445AbUKDVsJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:48:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:47:51 -0600 (CST) From: Adam Heath X-X-Sender: adam@gradall.private.brainfood.com To: Linus Torvalds cc: Chris Wedgwood , Christoph Hellwig , Timothy Miller , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: support of older compilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <41894779.10706@techsource.com> <20041103211353.GA24084@infradead.org> <20041103233029.GA16982@taniwha.stupidest.org> 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: 918 Lines: 28 On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I didn't deny the speed difference of older and newer compilers. > > > > But why is this an issue when compiling a kernel? How often do you compile > > your kernel? > > First off, for some people that is literally where _most_ of the CPU > cycles go. So find a fast machine. As I have already said, you don't need to compile a kernel for a slow machine/arch *on* a slow machine/arch. > Second, it's not just that the compilers are slower. Historically, new gcc > versions are: > - slower Again, that's a straw man. > - generate worse code > - buggier I don't doubt these are issues. That's not what I am discussing. - 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/