On Sunday 20 March 2005 00:25, Francois Romieu wrote: > w-thiel@xxxxxxx <w-thiel@xxxxxxx> : > [...] > > Of course, I appreciate your patch: IIRC, 2.95 is still recommended > > in the kernel sources. > > Last time I raised the subject on l-k, there was no strong technical > reason to use a kernel built with 2.95.x. Each of the 2.95.[234] > compiler has been caught miscompiling kernel code, especially in the > networking part (Google is your friend). > > This is no excuse to introduce new gcc syntaxic style but I would > take the compiler recommendation with a pinch of salt. And the kernel documents actually refer to an 'ancient' version of gcc 3, as if that would be the only minor version ever released :) Documentation/Changes from 2.6.11: The recommended compiler for the kernel is gcc 2.95.x (x >= 3), and it should be used when you need absolute stability. You may use gcc 3.0.x instead if you wish, although it may cause problems. I would think the core features of gcc that brought up the major version change would have matured by now, especially since most major distros seem to ship gcc 3.x versions by default. Kenneth
