"J.A. Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es> writes:
> That was my point, I do not know if some arch still requires 2.95 in 2.6.
> For 2.4, it states 2.95.3 as minimun.
Even if no arch `requires' gcc 2.95 (I don't really know, though until
recently my arch didn't even _have_ a [working] gcc 3.x port!), there
are certainly a buttload of people _using_ it to build the kernel, so
requiring gcc 3.2, would be kind of obnoxious.
-Miles
-- Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest? - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:20 EST