Matthew Reppert wrote: >snip > > >Many people have been using gcc-3.2 or later to build kernels, and I >haven't really heard of any problems with this, at least on i386. I >personally have used 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 (well, with Debian's patches) and >haven't had any weirdness with 2.6 or 2.4. ISTR there being arches that >need 3.x to compile, but I could be mistaken. > >2.95.3 is definitely the *oldest* compiler you'd want to use, and pretty >much skip between that and 3.2. > >Matt > > Same here. I've been using gcc3.2.0 and beyond currently 3.3.2 since the day they were released and never had any big issues. I would recomend using gcc 3.3.2 since it improves performance when using optimizations quite a bit as far as I can remember the statistics. Stef - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc 2.95.3Russell King
- Re: gcc 2.95.3Ingo Buescher
- make in 2.6.xKarel Kulhavý
- gcc 2.95.3Karel Kulhavý
- Re: gcc 2.95.3Karel Kulhavý
- Re: gcc 2.95.3Matthew Reppert
- Prev by Date: Re: [OFFTOPIC] "smack the penguin"
- Next by Date: 2.6.2-rc1-mm2 kernel oops
- Previous by thread: Re: gcc 2.95.3
- Next by thread: Re: gcc 2.95.3
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]