Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.2.13 & gcc-2.95.1 | Date | Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:05:55 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> > 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,
Alan
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |