minimal requirements for build C compiler?

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 06:06:17AM -0700, Andre wrote:
>Bernhard Fischer <rep.nop at aon.at> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 05:31:23AM -0700, Andre wrote:
>> >
>> > > > http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-April/020526.html
>> >
>> > "You should upgrade to a later version" is of course the standard
>> > argument for dropping support for older tools. It doesn't change
>> > the fact that 3.4.4 is an offical release and 'bleeding edge' not
>> > much more than a year ago - which for most projects would be
>> > reason enough to try to support it.
>> >
>> >Anyway, 3.4.6 has the same problem.
>> 
>> .. which does go away if you apply the patch referenced above?
>> 
>
>Yes.
>
>> What else is failing with gcc-3.4 on arm?
>
>Nothing that I know of.

Applied as r15190 on the busybox_1_1_stable branch and
r15191 on trunk.

Still, it's a bug in the compiler, no notion of dropping support for the
3.4 series.

Repeat after me: gcc-3.4 on ARM is broken. I'd be better off to use the
current -release of gcc (==4.1.x series) or the previous stable release
of gcc (==4.0.x) as the pre-previous release (==3.4.x) is broken on my
(ARM) platform ;)