On 10/26/2010 09:37 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> We have said 3.4 minimum for x86 for a long time now, and have an RFC > > Ok makes sense. I thought it was still at 3.3. I should retire > this 3.3 fossil anyways, it's really only for old compat testing. > > I don't remember seeing a warning -- aren't there supposed to be warnings > for unsupported compilers? > Not unless they are actively known to break. People get huffy about it because even if it is known to have problems it doesn't break *their* particular configuration. I'm getting to be of the opinion that people who compile modern kernels with ancient compilers and expect it to work are suffering from some particular kind of insanity -- it's nothing the distros do. The only exception are embedded people who compile with the latest 3.4 gcc; they have explained they do so because newer gccs have too many dependencies (the actual compiler, not the generated code) and for speed. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
