On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:49:44 -0700 Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Hennigan wrote: > > > I think, in general, it's best to stick with 2.95 compilers for the > > kernel. > > This seems to be the common view of the kernel developers, but I've had > no trouble building 2.4.20 and .21 kernels using whatever gcc was > current in Debian unstable at the time (3.3 currently, and I just built > a .21 kernel the other day with it, which seems to be doing fine). > > It may be relevant that I use kernel source tarballs from kernel.org, > not Debian packages, and I do not use make-kpkg. I don't think it's really relevant. I use both Debian kernel sources and make-kpkg, and it's not a problem for me. The problems building kernels with gcc3.3 were similar to the binutils a while back -- newer versions spat out bad code that earlier versions swallowed. The latest version of kernel-source-2.4.20 fixes the bad code, so the kernel now builds with gcc3.3. Kevin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]