On 1/30/2003 6:33 AM, someone claiming to be Kurt Wall wrote:
Feigning erudition, Net Llama! wrote:And according to the kernel README:
% On 01/29/03 19:42, Kurt Wall wrote:
% >Feigning erudition, Net Llama! wrote:
% >% % >% Redhat-7.0 had a seriously broken gcc implimentation. 8.0 has a beta % >% release of glibc. All the intermediate releases had no such problems, % >% and use standards compliant releases of gcc & glibc.
% >
% >I beg your pardon, but Red Hat 7.3 still used GCC 2.96:
% >$ rpm -q redhat-release
% >redhat-release-7.3-1
% >$ rpm -q gcc
% >gcc-2.96-110
% % so?
The GCC project never released 2.96. It was a Red Hat thing. While
it might have been "standards compliant" in the sense that it emitted
code the complies with ANSI/ISO C and C++ standard, it was certainly
not an official GCC release.
Kurt
<quote>
COMPILING the kernel:
- Make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available. gcc 2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) may also work but is not as safe, and *gcc 2.7.2.3 is no longer supported*.
Also remember to upgrade your binutils package (for as/ld/nm and company) if necessary. For more information, refer to ./Documentation/Changes.
</quote>
and from ./Documentation/Changes:
<quote>
The recommended compiler for the kernel is gcc 2.95.x (x >= 3), and it
should be used when you need absolute stability. You may use gcc 3.0.x
instead if you wish, although it may cause problems. Later versions of gcc have not received much testing for Linux kernel compilation, and there are almost certainly bugs (mainly, but not exclusively, in the kernel) that will need to be fixed in order to use these compilers. In any case, using pgcc instead of egcs or plain gcc is just asking for trouble.
</quote>
So none of the RedHat versions of gcc should be used to compile a stable kernel, at least according to the folks that make the kernel...
Tim
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
