Re: Does anyone care about gcc 3.x support for x86 anymore?

[Ingo Molnar]

* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 05/19/2010 04:10 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > 
> > However, if the problems are just performance/dead 
> > code removal, I would just add a big warning if 
> > someone tries to compile x86 with it. I don't like 
> > very much the idea of having different minimum gcc 
> > requirements for each architecture, except if gcc is 
> > producing a broken code.
> > 
> 
> I should clarify the problem.  The problems we have seen 
> are related to constant propagation, which causes gcc3 
> to die when there is an assembly constraint like:
> 
> 	asm("..." : : "i" (foo));
> 
> ... since "foo" isn't constant as far as it is 
> concerned.  We can put in workarounds, but it's real 
> effort to keep it alive that probably isn't well spent.
> 
> Similarly, lack of constant propagation can cause code 
> that should have been compile-time removed to still be 
> there, causing link failures.

Put in a deprecation warning first perhaps?

	Ingo
--
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/