> } before on this list) and we didn't have time to implement and QA the > > Oh, my. Doing the QA on a kernel change of compiler is a long hard process. It took until 2.2.17 to apparently get a 2.2 kernel solid with gcc 2.95. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: non-gcc linux? Kai Henningsen
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Ralf Baechle
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where ... Andi Kleen
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Christoph Hellwig
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Kai Henningsen
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Michael Meissner
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Wh... Kai Henningsen
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where ... Thomas Pornin
- Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where ... Kai Henningsen
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Tom Rini
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Alan Cox
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Alan Cox
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Mike Galbraith
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Jeff Garzik
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Wayne . Brown
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Jeff Garzik
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? J . A . Magallon
- Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Wayne . Brown