Why GCC 4?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 17 March 2006 15:41, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 12:47:55AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've wondered about this for a while. How come Ubuntu is compiled
> > with gcc 4? Is there a specific technical advantage to doing
> > this?
> >
> >
> > I can see the sense in still compiling the kernel with 3.3 (heck,
> > the kernel docs still recommend 2.95.3),
>
> It hasn't been recommended for ages, and as of 2.6.16-rc6 the
> minimum required version of gcc is given in Documentation/Changes
> as 3.2.

I don't think so. /usr/src/linux-2.6.12.6/Documentation/Changes:

"The recommended compiler for the kernel is gcc 2.95.x (x >= 3), and
it should be used when you need absolute stability. You may use gcc
3.0.x instead if you wish, although it may cause problems. Later
versions of gcc have not received much testing for Linux kernel
compilation, and there are almost certainly bugs (mainly, but not
exclusively, in the kernel) that will need to be fixed in order to use
these compilers."

That's the current stable kernel. So not only has it not not been 
recommended for ages, 2.95.x (x >=3) *is* the currently recommended 
compiler. Unless Linus got around to changing the docs like yesterday

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five