Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

From: Jörn Engel (
Date: 04/06/05

  • Next message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [OOPS] 2.6.11 - NMI lockup with CFQ scheduler"
    Date:	Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:27:51 +0200
    To: Renate Meijer <>

    On Wed, 6 April 2005 14:04:39 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
    > >And you did read this thread as well, right?
    > >
    > <quote>
    > Things seem to have improved a bit lately. The gcc-3.x series was
    > basically not worth it for plain C until 3.3 or so.
    > </quote>
    > Yes. You did read the actual data as produced by that guy from Suse,
    > did you? In the past,
    > people may have justly stuck to (e.g.) 2.95.3, however, support for
    > that version now starts to
    > require dependencies on compiler internals. This is one argument in
    > favor of dropping support
    > for that version, or at least not to spread compiler dependent stuff
    > all over the code.

    Fyi, another fact that was missing from the quoted thread: gcc 2.95
    catches bugs that 3.x compilers simply miss. Support for the old
    compiler is more work, no doubt, and at times requires to work around
    plain compiler bugs as well. But there is some return on investment.

    Is it worth the effort? Not sure. But the "it's old, drop support
    for it" argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by


    Schrödinger's cat is <BLINK>not</BLINK> dead.
    -- Illiad
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

  • Next message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [OOPS] 2.6.11 - NMI lockup with CFQ scheduler"