>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Andree <email@example.com> writes:
Matthias> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> I've heard Alan mention specifics.. search the archives. (I rather
>> doubt that our maintainers feel particularly obligated to prove
>> spit to your personal satisfaction) Live with it.
Matthias> So since Jes is not the KERNEL nor the X86 tree maintainer,
Matthias> he has not to comment on that issue, but is spreading
Matthias> FUD. Live with it.
Oh dear thats excellent! As Matthias suggested go back and read the
archives, Alan has posted specifics and Linus had a longer argument
over it some months ago which was on the topic of gcc 2.9x not
following it's own documentation wrt inline asm or gcc extensions.
Now I may not be the x86 or kernel maintainer however I have been
maintaining the m68k tree for four-five years plus a bunch of other
code in the kernel. I know how it is to have people coming running at
you with complaints about your code not working until it shows up they
used some bollocks compiler ... any further questions?
Matthias> Sorry, no offense, but since Alan considers gcc 2.95.2 as
Matthias> fine for 2.2.17pre, I cannot see any further reason to stick
Matthias> with decrepit egcs.
Alan's comments about 2.2.17pre14 came as a bit of a surprise to me -
so if 2.2.17pre1x has been fixed it still doesn't mean you should run
out and compile every single kernel before it with that compiler.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:06 EST