> Pavel Machek wrote: > > Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to > > reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?). > > What fails, when you use egcs-1.1.2 to build 2.0.x or early 2.2.x? egcs miscompiles inlined strstr. It gets combined with bad asm constraints to mean that 2.0 and earlier 2.2 will crash when fed the right (wrong ?) sequence of FPU ops to software emulate - 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/
- [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant) Andrew Morton
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous r... Linus Torvalds
- [PATCH] 2.4 Changes update (was Re: [patch... Barry K. Nathan
- Re: [PATCH] 2.4 Changes update (was Re... Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH] 2.4 Changes update (wa... Marcus Sundberg
- Re: [PATCH] 2.4 Changes update (wa... Paul Gortmaker
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuito... Andrew Morton
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuito... Pavel Machek
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus grat... Jeff Garzik
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus grat... Alan Cox
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus grat... Keith Owens
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus ... Richard Henderson
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (... Peter Samuelson
- Re: [patch] kernel/module... Richard Henderson
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus ... Rusty Russell
- Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (... Peter Samuelson
- Recommended compiler? - R... Linux Kernel Developer
- Re: Recommended compi... Peter Samuelson
- Re: Recommended compi... Martin Dalecki