On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:14:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:37:32 -0400 > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What you meant to do was to run "make CC=gcc-2.95" instead of make. There > > is no need to futz around with the default gcc version; just ask for what > > you want. > > Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from > running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. It > would die repeatedly on the same line in ide-cd.h. I did tell make to use > gcc-2.95 and it failed on the exact same line. Removing gcc, which is 3.3, > gcc-2.95 which depended on 3.3 (this is NOT 2.95 in my eyes) and then > installing the packages from woody did allow me to recompile that version of > the kernel. > > I fail to see how 2.95 installing 3.3 somehow equates to 2.95.
I fail to see how 2.95 installing both 3.3 and 2.95 somehow equates to a problem! It brings in 3.3 for hysterical raisins, but that doesn't stop gcc-2.95 from being perfectly usable. I build kernels with alternate compilers all the time. Did you check the log to see which compiler the kernel actually built with? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer