gcc for kernel different than current gcc

[Patrice Dumas]

> until the fires are put out.  And I don't think its constructive use
> of anyone's time to point out inconsistency until the first pass of
> the gcc 3.4 build process has stopped.

I couldn't know whether it was intentional or not, and I don't know how the
build process works. I found a bug and I report it.

> If your eating out of the development tree right now, and you aren't expecting
> problems more serious than a simple gcc mismatch, you aren't
> approaching the situation wisely. 

I use the development tree to test stuff and report bugs. I don't expect
anything to work. I think that you misunderstood my position. I am not
complaining that something don't work. I am reporting it. I agree that maybe
I shouldn't have reported, but knowing which issue should be reported and 
which shouldn't seems far from easy to me. I also reported before that it 
wasn't possible to build external modules as user, I thought that this was 
the same kind of issue. And a gcc mismatch is a serious problem. All the
problems are serious. Still I don't expect any problem to be fixed, it's up to
the developers.

And about the development repository being more broken at some times and less
at others, I don't think it helps. I, personnally, consider that the 
development tree is always to be considered as broken.

Pat