Alan Cox writes:
> > How can 2.95.2 possibly be considered bleeding edge? And why should we
> > be forced to be stuck with old, obsolete compilers and utilities for
> > compiling our kernel? Shouldn't forward progress in the kernel include
> > supporting current stable compilers, like 2.95.2? Just because it's a
>
> Both 2.95.2 and egcs 1.* miscompile some setups on x86 with Linux 2.4.0test
> (strstr stuff notable). A couple of drivers dont seem to work with 2.95 (driver
> bugs)
>
> > little more ANSI compliant than previous compilers shouldn't stop us
> > from using it.
>
> its nothing to do with ansi compliance. gcc 2.95 is a bit more
> flexible about some gnu extensions. The fact 2.7.2 doesnt work with
> test2 is just a bug, its one of those you never catch until someone
> using 2.7.2 builds the tree, then you hear loudly about it 8)
So, lemme see. You don't use gcc 2.7.2.3 (otherwise you'd be
complaining) yourself. But whenever a bug report comes in and another
compiler is used, you tell people to go away and use gcc 2.7.2.3.
;-)
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:05 EST