Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751231AbVL3Ja2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:30:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751232AbVL3Ja1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:30:27 -0500 Received: from willy.net1.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:1548 "EHLO willy.net1.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751231AbVL3Ja1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:30:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:28:00 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Jesper Juhl Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com Subject: Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers Message-ID: <20051230092800.GB30681@w.ods.org> References: <1135798495.2935.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20051228212313.GA4388@elte.hu> <20051228214845.GA7859@elte.hu> <20051228201150.b6cfca14.akpm@osdl.org> <20051229073259.GA20177@elte.hu> <20051229231615.GV15993@alpha.home.local> <9a8748490512300033occeec40xab3b4f49624c08c5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9a8748490512300033occeec40xab3b4f49624c08c5@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1995 Lines: 45 On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 09:33:14AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > On 12/30/05, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > > Can't we elect a recommended gcc version that distro makers could > > ship under the name kgcc as it has been the case for some time, > > and try to stick to that version for as long as possible ? The only > > real reason to upgrade it would be to support newer archs, while at > > the moment, we try to support compilers which are shipped as default > > *user-space* compilers. > > > As I see it, doing that would > - put extra work on distributors. In the short term, yes. In the mid-term, I don't think so. Having one package which does not need to change and another one which evolves regardless of kernel needs is less work than ensuring that a single package is still compatible with everyone's needs. Think about support too : "what gcc version did you use ?" would simply become "did you build with kgcc ?" > - bloat users systems with the need to have two gcc versions installed. $ size /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/3.3.6/cc1 text data bss dec hex filename 3430228 2680 746688 4179596 3fc68c /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/3.3.6/cc1 You don't even need libgcc nor c++ to build the kernel. Anyway, it should not be an absolute requirement, but the *recommended* and *supported* version. > - decrease testing with different gcc versions, which sometimes uncover bugs. gcc testing should not consume kernel developpers' time, but gcc's users. How many kernel bugs have finally been attributed to a recent change in gcc ? A lot I think. Uncovering bugs in gcc is useful but not the primary goal of kernel developpers. > Jesper Juhl Willy - 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/