[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:0.076 / U:7.960 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site