} Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:15:24 -0600
} From: Cort Dougan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}
} 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
