On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, John Lapeyre wrote: > The link to suse doesn't work at the moment, but I'll give it a try. > The blurb at cygnus does not look encouraging. I think it is claiming > that I have to "to change asm constructs" at various unspecified places > in the source.
Nah, they're just trying to cover their backs, so that people can't whinge at them *if* things go wrong -- they're only *trying* to worry you. Everyone I know who uses the patches says they're fine. > What should work? gcc272 ? I have tried it on two current potato > machines. building with CC=gcc272 fails to build both 2.0.x and 2.2.x > kernels. Building with the default compiler (egcs 2.95) will only build > 2.2.x kernels. The kernel mailing list still claims that I should > build with 2.7.2 before sending a bug report about my corrupted fs. Yeah, 2.7.2.* is the canonical compiler for 2.0 kernels. Can you post what's actually going wrong? > I have an old 2.0.36 kernel, but I need to compile a module for a driver. > I think that given the number of instability reports regarding 2.2.x > kernels it might be nice to be able to compile 2.0.x somewhat easily. What module's that -- does it not work under 2.2? Yeah, it *should* be straightforward... > Am I being obtuse, or are things pretty fucked up regarding kernels and > compilers ? Er, a little, yeah. Unfortunately the Linux kernel is quite a stressful bit of code to compile (it needs to get good x86 performance), and so things got really tested to the full, w.r.t. the compiler, but the compiler had bugs, and they had to be worked around, etc. It's not that pretty. -- Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ( http://www.fluff.org/chris )
