> Reason 4 is inertia. You are explicitly considering inertia a good reason,
> then? I remember back around 1998, the argument over "-fno-strength-reduce"
> which accomplished nothing whatsoever (and was in fact disabled in gcc 2.7.x
> for i386) but was in the kernel compile for a long time becaue nobody could
> be bothered to remove it...
However, there were versions of gcc which generated bad x86 code if you
didn't use it. It stayed until that version would no longer compile the
kernel.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/