From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton To: Michael Meissner Cc: gcc Subject: Re: comparisons.. Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:24:00 -0000 Message-id: <396D6DCA.6C8F71DB@uow.edu.au> References: <396D3B72.8A9426EA@uow.edu.au> <20000713023538.08807@cse.cygnus.com> <396D65DF.85085933@uow.edu.au> <20000713025742.57520@cse.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-07/msg00387.html Michael Meissner wrote: > > I probably shoudn't have been as flip with the fine manual quote, > but I assumed you were using something recent and just didn't > bother reading the documentation... Oh that's fine. RTFM is usually the best response. > > pwold011:/home/morton> gcc -v > > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-unknown-linux/2.7.2.3/specs > > gcc version 2.7.2.3 > > > > Any chance of a backport? :) > > Considering 2.7.2.3 was released something like 4-5 years ago, I seriously > doubt people would be interested in backporting it. Well of course the culprit here is the Linux kernel. I brought this issue up earlier today and aviro suggested that it would take "at least a year of beating" before 3.0 would be anointed as the compiler-of-choice for the kernel. This is somewhat at odds with my empirical observations: Linus put out a kernel the other day which crashed immediately due to a 2.7.2.3 bug and I think I was the only one who even noticed! This is an unhappy situation because there is now a very wide spread of compiler versions being used on the kernel and, to a small extent, it is costing development/debugging time. If it were mine I'd say "dammit, we'll use the latest" as this is the fastest way to get gcc and the kernel up to speed and cooperating. It's not a good time in the kernel's life to do this though. It looks like 2.7.2.3 usage is fading out by default, but in favour of what, I'm unsure.