Hello Alexander ,
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I personally dislike the 'autmatically detect kgcc and gcc272' patches a lot,
> > and I think we should put a sentence like
> > If you are using a distribution that ships with a default C compiler that is
> > not able to compile linux kernel, use make CC=kgcc (redhat) or CC=gcc272
> > (debian) instead.
> > into README, instead of fiddling around with a command/program with lots of
> > different and incompatible versions.
> Forget distributions. There is a very, very good reason to have the choice
> of cc used in kernel builds uncoupled from the userland one. IMO kgcc is a
> misnomer (kcc would be better), but the idea is sound - you don't want to
> deal with the miscompiled kernel while you are porting the userland to
> another version of compiler. You also don't want it once you've are done
> with the userland stuff - level of dependency on gcc details is much
> higher in case of the kernel.
Where does the idea that the kernel 'needs' a special compiler
come from ? I have been under the impression that that is just
what we were trying to get away from . I am reminded of other
os's that required their propritary compiler in order to create
a os image . Please let us not travel that road . Tia , JimL
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network Engineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
