Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Apr 1998 05:32:17 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Adam D. Bradley" <> | Subject | Re: gcc 2.8 |
| |
> 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.
If you have the space, it's nice to have several available on your system, so you can build your system-critical stuff (kernels, libs, etc) with the "more stable" 2.7.2.3, but build less critical things using the alternate compiler. For example, I have 2.7.2.3 and EGCS installed on a cluster of RH 4.2 machines here... "gcc" usually resolves to /usr/bin/gcc which is 2.7.2.3, but I can pass "CC=/l/local-libc5/egcs/gcc" to Make for builds using EGCS, like for my high-performance experimental threaded web server code ;-)
Adam -- You crucify all honesty \\Adam D. Bradley artdodge@cs.bu.edu No signs you see do you believe \\Boston University Computer Science And all your words just twist and turn\\ Grad Student and Linux Hacker Reviving just to crash and burn \\ <>< ---------> Why can't you listen as love screams everywhere? <--------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |