Re: [PATCH] Fix fs/fat/inode.c when compiled with gcc-3.0.x

[Denis Vlasenko]

On 11 January 2002 16:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'll apply it to the 2.5.x tree - it's not as if it can hurt anything (it
> will actually generate better code, as a signed divide is slightly more
> complex than just a shift due to rounding issues, and gcc doesn't know
> that the inode length will always be non-negative).
>
> Whether it is worth working around in 2.4.x I don't have any real opinion
> on, but I doubt it is worthwhile to compile 2.4.x with gcc-3.0.x anyway.
> But again, applying it won't hurt.

I don't consider kernel compilation as a developer-only activity:
we certainly don't expect Aunt Tillie to compile kernels, but it's expected 
almost every server admin will want/need to do it.

Keeping two versions of GCC (one for 2.4 kernel, other for everyday use) is 
something I don't like. Imagine what we will have around New Year 2003: 2.5 
is still devel, 2.4 is stable, GCC 3.1+ is out and stable. Most people will 
be glad to have 2.4 compilable by GCC 3.1 IMHO.

The fact that kernels compiled with GCC 3 are _bigger_ than ones compiled 
with 2.96 is really annoys me. Will keep an eye on this as GCC 3 stabilize...
--
vda