Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well

[Markus H舖tbacka<midian _at_ xxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Weinehall wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:28:30AM +0000, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> ...
> > Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it
> > be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any
> > other latest gcc. At the same time,  also make it remain compliant to
> > gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3
> > on the ftp)  Is this work worth while?
>
> Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember
> correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to
> generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc.
> It might be that I remember this incorrectly though.
>
only the module-code? :)
> It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some
> degree that no new bugs are introduced.
>
That would probably be impossible to do without introducing any bugs..
> My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy
> up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
>
Sounds great, a bit amazing that 2.0 is alive again :)

	Markus

-
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/