[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.2.13 & gcc-2.95.1
    > > Please dont build production kernels with gcc 2.95.x. For fun yes, work no.
    > Does it mean that nobody cares to fix errors in assembler code? Do we have
    > to keep special compiler for kernel only? It seems that gcc-2.95.x is the

    I've got a big pile of fixes from Bero and others I will slowly merge.

    > official GNU C compiler, isn't it? May be I'm wrong (I doubt), but I do
    > think that it's a good thing to get the kernel buildable with the official
    > compiler... EGCS had not been the official GNU C compiler, so one can make
    > an excuse kinda "don't use something unofficial", but this is not a case
    > with gcc-2.95.x...
    > Did you try to build a kernel with gcc-2.95.1? Have you seen that whole

    I've got reports from 2.95.1

    > bunch of assembler warnings during the build? May be those warnings can
    > explain (at least partially) why don't the resulting kernel behave?

    Understand something here. If 2.2.14 or 2.2.15 builds perfectly with gcc 2.95.1
    I will be happy. I want it to build and work with all the new compilers. Equally
    from a production perspective right now we know it doesnt work, right now
    it hasn't had sufficient testing with the patches.

    All Im trying to say is - if you are building a kernel to go out on CD, to
    run on a web server, professionally for a client etc - be aware that 2.95*
    is the wrong thing to build it with. If you want to build with 2.95.1 on
    non critical machines and help change this then great,


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.020 / U:39.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site