Messages in this thread | | | From | "Dmitry Yaitskov" <> | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:05:40 -0400 | Subject | Re: gcc 2.8 |
| |
On Tuesday, Apr 14, Michael L. Galbraith (mikeg@weiden.de) spake thusly: > On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Adam D. Bradley wrote: > > > > > > Awhile ago (maybe just a few months - I don't remember) I "upgraded" from > > > gcc 2.7.2.3 to gcc 2.8.0. Recently (past couple of days) I read somewhere > > > that gcc 2.7.2.3 was still preferred for kernel compilations over gcc > > > 2.8.0, pgcc, and egcs because the latter three can produce "bad" code. Is > > > this true? If so, is it really necessary for me to go back to using 2.7.2.3? > > > > 2.8.0 has some known problems. 2.8.1 is better, don't know how much > > better tho. > > > > FWIW I've had nice experiences with 2.8.1.. very heavy useage. I don't > over optimize tho as bloated bins/libs turns my system into a slug. > > -Mike
Well, I prob'ly shouldn't post an essentially 'me too' follow-up, but anyway... I've been using gcc 2.8.1 for 2 or 3 weeks now, while moving my system from libc5 to glibc2 and from kernel 2.0.33 to 2.1.xx (which means recompiling all system stuff, no prebuilt binaries) - and did not notice any problems with the compiler.
-- Cheers, -Dima.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |