Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:44:51PM -0400, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> the problem is, we cannot just put it even into tip/master if there's 
>> no short-term hope of fixing a problem it triggers. gcc-4.2.3 is solid 
>> for me otherwise, for series of thousands of randomly built kernels.
>>
>
> 4.2.3 is fine; he was using 4.2.0 before, and as far as I know, 4.2.0  
> and 4.2.1 are known broken for the kernel.

Not sure where your knowledge comes from, but the ones I try to get 
blacklisted due to known gcc bugs are 4.1.0 and 4.1.1.

On a larger picture, we officially support gcc >= 3.2, and if any kernel 
change triggers a bug with e.g. gcc 3.2.3 that's technically a 
regression in the kernel...

> 	-hpa

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/