Re: GCC version change / C++ ABI change
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:39:59AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:20:36PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:42:39AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > > > Most kernel hackers don't care that much about 2.4 any more.
> > > >
> > > > This is of course one of the reasons why users feel left alone by the
> > > > kernel developers.
> > >
> > > 2.2 went also in deep freeze for 2.4?
> > > what are you whining about - an x86 only kernel,
> > > that needed to be heavily patched by each distro to get usable?
> >
> > It is my believe that the 2.4 kernel is still in wide spread use
> > both indide and outside Debian, thats a cause for being concerned
> > about it in my books.
>
> Indeed, its the kernel shipped with RHEL 3.x .
>
> 2.4 is still being looked after though, isn't it? Maybe the hackers
> don't care about it from a features perspective, I'd be suprised if
> there weren't people working on security problems as and when they
> happen.
2.4 is being maintained in the big wide world. Its being looked after
for security bugs. And it is being maintained upstram. Almost all of
the development focus upstream is on 2.6, and almost all shiny new
feature are going into 2.6 rather than 2.4. But 2.4 is not dead
upstream.
> As for it not compiling with GCC 4.x, is there really any good reason to
> make it do so? The lifetime of the 2.4 kernel is undoubtably less than
> the GCC 3.x branch in distributions. Any attempt to port 2.4 to 4.0
> would run the risk of introducing problems for no gain.
I don't believe it is worth while to do so - we can always compile
it with gcc 3.x, and as you point out, that isn't a compiler
that is going away in a hurry. Furthermore, I don't think there
are any efforts going into making this happen.
--
Horms
Reply to: