linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: CVS Update@linux-mips.org: linux
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:34:41 +0100
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0502141557460.2566@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20050214035304Z8225242-1340+3175@linux-mips.org> <20050214153435.GD806@linux-mips.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0502141557460.2566@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:06:51PM +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> > Bulletproofing 2.4 against newer tools is something that only makes limited
> > sense, especially wrt. to gcc 3.4 and newer.  Chances for any such changes
> > to be accepted upstream are slim - and the kernel has traditionally been
> > easily affected by overoptimization, so I recommend against gcc 3.4.  The
> > recommended compiler for 2.4 is still gcc 2.95.3 but except gcc 3.0 upto
> > gcc 3.3 is reasonable and can be considered well tested.
> 
>  I do agree in general, but given that the construct I've used has been 
> supported by gas since 1995, there is no point in keeping our code broken.  
> And binutils actually quite rarely trigger problems with Linux, while 
> they've got improved significantly with the last few releases; unlike with 
> GCC it's normally a good idea to use the latest version of binutils.

I wasn't objecting to your patch; it's just that I expect some users to
upgrade to a recent binutils and gcc at the same time and that has good
chances to end up in a nice firework ;-)

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>