Hal Burgiss wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:39:18AM -0600, mark wrote:
> > > also work but is not as safe, and *gcc 2.7.2.3 is no longer
> > > supported*.
> >
> > Ok? No FUD, personal knowledge, and documented in the source.
> Nope. Its still FUD.
<snip>
> The Red Hat gcc 2.96 compiler subtree can also be used to build this
> tree. You should ensure you use gcc-2.96-74 or later. gcc-2.96-54 will
> not build the kernel correctly.
Hal, in case I didn't mention it the first time around, I'm on
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-98)
It is this version, which you must admit is > 2.96-74, that gave me grief,
and necessitated running the make bzImage about 6 times, successively, and
resulted in what I spoke about previously.
mark
--
Have you noticed that, when we were young, we were told
that "everybody else is doing it" was a really stupid
reason to do something, but now it's the standard reason
for picking a particular software package? -- Barry Gehm
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@;redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
