On Wed, 2003-11-19 16:29:43 -0800, David Daney <email@example.com>
wrote in message <3FBC0AF7.firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Ralf Baechle wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 05:40:31PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> Which options have other people used with gcc 3.3.1 with good results?
It's a question of what you call "good results". If there are bugs in
the kernel sources which only show up with a really aggressive HEAD
compiler, then IMHO it's a good result to see the compiled kernel crash,
just because there actually *is* a bug.
Companies however tend to accept a slower/more bloated/whatever software
(produced by an older compiler) in order not to start hunting down the
remaining (and possibly hard to find) bugs...
Jan-Benedict Glaw email@example.com . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
Description: Digital signature