[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BF2FF26.9050701@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:57:10 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, avi@...hat.com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/fpu] x86: Add new static_cpu_has() function using alternatives
On 05/18/2010 01:10 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> # gcc -v
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/3.4.6/specs
> Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
> --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
> --disable-checking --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit
> --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-java-awt=gtk
> --host=i386-redhat-linux
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-10)
I just implemented a fallback for gcc 3, but the real question is to
which degree we still care about gcc 3 support for x86 specifically
(other architectures might have other needs, but this is x86-specific code.)
Lately the number of issues with gcc 3 support seems to have gone way
up, and at some point we're going to have to cut it loose -- when would
depend largely on what the usage case is; e.g. why are you, yourself,
using gcc 3.4 to compile a state of the art kernel?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists