Re: Which gcc version?

[David Weinehall]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:35:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > At 20:14 23/11/01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If there is a performance hit, it's not enough to worry about.
> > >
> > >except egcs-1.1.2 (2.91.6) compiles stuff at almost twice the speed
> > >of gcc3.  The person who breaks egcs-1.1.2 for kernel builds owes
> > >me a quad Xeon, thanks very much.
> > 
> > Have you read the current Documentation/Changes? It says "the 2.5 tree is
> > likely to drop egcs-1.1.2 workarounds". Whoever wrote that seems to be
> > wanting to break it in the near future...
> 
> Well that's great news.  To whom do I send my shipping address?
> 
> Actually, I have negligible interest in working on something which
> won't be useful to real people for three years, so that works out,
> doesn't it?

Dropping workarounds for egcs-1.1.2 doesn't mean that gcc-2.95.3+ or
gcc-2.96-x (x > whatever the infamed version nr was) will stop working.

Thus, there's a perfectly fine alternative to gcc3. gcc3 is too broken
to use on many platforms. Then again, it's the only alternative for
others... Sigh.

As long as gcc-2.95.3 is the recommended minimum version, I'm
happy.

Regards: David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <[e-mail]> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </