Re: [git pull] core/percpu for v2.6.27

[Mike Travis]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

...
> 
> in hindsight core/percpu indeed looks unfinished and direction-less 
> without core/percpu-zerobased - but the latter is not stable yet.
> 
> 	Ingo

Well it's very stable using gcc-4.2.4.  The earlier problems came about
using gcc-4.2.0 and has yet to be determined what exactly went wrong.
(And I need to install gcc-3.2 to complete the build/test QA.)

Btw, is there a list of "bad" gcc's for kernel building?  Or better yet,
can the Makefile script provide a warning when a known "bad" gcc is
being used to compile the kernel?  I seem to recall that Peter provided
this list:

	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.

Thanks!
Mike
--
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/