On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:25:43PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes, but the kernel doesn't use C++ and afaik other than that there were only
> a few minor bugfixes between 3.1 and 3.2. So it doesn't make any
> difference for this special case.
gcc 3.2.3 is four bugfix releases and nine months later than 3.1.1, and
there are virtually no gcc 3.1 users.
It's not a strong opinion, but if the question is whether to draw the
line before or after gcc 3.1 I'd vote for dropping gcc 3.1 support.
> -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
