Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change
Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> writes:
> > >
> > > > Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> > This week, we will change the GCC default versions from 3.3 to 4.0
> > > >>
> > > >> Would it break kernel 2.4 builds somehow ?
> > > >> I've not been quite following; but the thread almost a month ago
> > > >> seems to indicate thus:
> > > >> http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050701_316.html#7
> > > >
> > > > Quite likely, yes. 2.4 Kernels would need to Build-Dep on 3.4.
> > >
> > > But the current versions of 2.4 doesn't get fixed yet?
> >
> > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
>
> I'd rephrase that as, we need to discuss if 2.4 should be included
> in etch.
I don't think gcc-4.0 is a hard requirement for that. We still have
even gcc-2.95 in the archive, and a gcc 3.3/3.4 version is likely to
be around for etch.
> My understanding is that it is needed for some arches,
> and my personal feeling is that 2.4 is maintained upstream and in
> many cases is a valid choice over 2.6.
I just wanted to hint that upstream is more interested in making 2.6 a
more valid choice instead of sinking time in a compiler upgrade for 2.4
which provides little benefit for the kernel.
Thiemo
Reply to: