On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:05:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 01:01:26AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you please apply the following patch then?
> > >
> > > Remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > Thus far I have this:
>
> Would it be possible to drop support for gcc 3.0 too?
> AFAIK it has never been widely used. If we assume 3.1+ minimum it has the
> advantage that named assembly arguments work, which make
> the inline assembly often a lot easier to read and maintain.
3.2+ would be better than 3.1+
Remember that 3.2 would have been named 3.1.2 if there wasn't the C++
ABI change, and I don't remember any big Linux distribution actually
using gcc 3.1 as default compiler.
And since gcc 3.2 was released one and a half years before kernel 2.6.0,
I doubt there's any distribution both supporting kernel 2.6 and not
shipping any gcc >= 3.2 .
> -Andi
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
