Re: Recommended compiler version

[Dan Kegel]

John B. wrote:
> Quote from Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > Whether support for gcc 2.95 should be dropped is a discussion for 2.7.
>
> Is there any single 3.x.x version of GCC that's actively in use by a large
> number of core developers?  How do we make a sensible recommendation if not?

As an aside, it seems like gcc-3.3.3 is pretty good.
There are some known problems with it, but the number is small.
I haven't tried gcc-3.4.0 much yet, but I have seen a few kernel patches
to fix issues 3.4.0 found in the kernel source.

I agree 2.6 should continue to support and compile correctly under gcc-2.95.3,
even if that means working around compiler bugs.  By the time linux-2.7
rolls around, I suspect nobody will mind if we drop 2.95.3 in favor
of 3.4.x.  It'll be interesting to see if newer gccs optimize the kernel better...
- Dan


--
My technical stuff: http://kegel.com
My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/