Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:36:15 -0600 | From | Cort Dougan <> | Subject | Re: Updated 2.4 TODO List -- new addition WAS(test9 PCI |
| |
} Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:15:24 -0600 } From: Cort Dougan <cort@fsmlabs.com> } } It's not a new idea but that doesn't make it a good one. The idea } of distributing the _same_ compiler but different versions is } nutty. } } Actually, this is common practice even in the commercial UNIX world } for kernel development. I have seen several UNIX vendors who use a } specific version of a specific compiler for kernel development. When } you want to build a kernel, you check out the kernel build kit, and } this is the compiler that gets used. } } I honestly see nothing wrong with it. There are different parts of } the compiler stressed by the kernel build as opposed to most userland } compilation, and furthermore the desired compiler stability/feature } ratio is different for each task. So one way to solve these differing } needs is to simply use different compilers.
I remember building kernels on SunOS systems and I don't remember it fondly. I don't think "it's been done in UNIX before" is a strong argument for something being done now :)
I remember doing builds on redhat systems with 'make' but now what do I need to do? Tinker around with the Makefile, do 'make CC=kgcc' or what's the advised build methodology for the kernel with redhat now?
I pray the PowerPC distributions don't follow in this path...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |