Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Horst von Brand wrote: > > Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [...] > > > > * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. > > > Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of > > preprocessor warnings in some drivers. > > CVS (from 20001028 or so) gave a 2.4.0.10.6/i686 that crashed on boot, no > time to dig deeper yet. I was just using the compiler shipped by RedHat with all the fixes contained therein self compiled under glibc-2.1.95 on a system which some long time ago was RedHat-5.1 ;-). And it worked. - 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/
Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Horst von Brand wrote: Martin Dalecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Peter Samuelson wrote: [...] * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of preprocessor warnings in some drivers. CVS (from 20001028 or so) gave a 2.4.0.10.6/i686 that crashed on boot, no time to dig deeper yet. I was just using the compiler shipped by RedHat with all the fixes contained therein self compiled under glibc-2.1.95 on a system which some long time ago was RedHat-5.1 ;-). And it worked. - 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/
Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:50:07PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote: > Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [...] > > > > * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. > > > Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of > > preprocessor warnings in some drivers. > > CVS (from 20001028 or so) gave a 2.4.0.10.6/i686 that crashed on boot, no > time to dig deeper yet. CVS 2.97 is known to miscompile e.g. buffer.c. Jakub - 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/
Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Peter Samuelson wrote: [...] > > * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. > Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of > preprocessor warnings in some drivers. CVS (from 20001028 or so) gave a 2.4.0.10.6/i686 that crashed on boot, no time to dig deeper yet. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, ChileFax: +56 32 797513 - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:05:43AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > But I think it's since been fixed: No. > Is there more subtle breakage? Yes. r~ - 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/
Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Peter Samuelson wrote: > > > So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x, > > 2.4.x(pre?) nowadays? > > * 2.91.66 aka egcs 1.1.2. It has been officially blessed for 2.4 and > has been given an informal thumbs-up by Alan for 2.2. (It does NOT > work for 2.0, if you still care about that.) > > * 2.7.2.3 works for 2.2 (and 2.0) but NOT for 2.4. > > * 2.95.2 seems to work with both 2.2 and 2.4 (no known bugs, AFAIK) and > many of us use it, but it is a little riskier than egcs. > > * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of preprocessor warnings in some drivers. - 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/
Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
> So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x, > 2.4.x(pre?) nowadays? * 2.91.66 aka egcs 1.1.2. It has been officially blessed for 2.4 and has been given an informal thumbs-up by Alan for 2.2. (It does NOT work for 2.0, if you still care about that.) * 2.7.2.3 works for 2.2 (and 2.0) but NOT for 2.4. * 2.95.2 seems to work with both 2.2 and 2.4 (no known bugs, AFAIK) and many of us use it, but it is a little riskier than egcs. * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. Peter - 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/
Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x, 2.4.x(pre?) nowadays? I've pretty much kept gcc 2.7.2.3 around just for compiling the kernel however now I hear you need egcs to compile 2.4? I don't mind keeping 2.7.2.3 around in its own installation directory just for the purpose of doing kernel work however from a previous post I've now got the impression that egcs has become the recommended compiler? If I'm going to keep a secondary compiler around (outside of gcc 2.95.2 which I still hear is no good for kernel compiles) just for kernel work I'd prefer to use my disk space on the recommended one. > > [Rusty] > > > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel > > > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel > > > CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel > > > > No, environment doesn't override make variables by default. This > > works on any shell: > > > > make CC=egcs > > If you're going to get pedantic, that won't work either -- since the > makefiles in kernels 2.0 and 2.2 expect $(CC) to include some compiler > flags. This was fixed somewhere in 2.3.3x. > > Peter > - - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
[Rusty] > > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel > > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel > > CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel > > No, environment doesn't override make variables by default. This > works on any shell: > > make CC=egcs If you're going to get pedantic, that won't work either -- since the makefiles in kernels 2.0 and 2.2 expect $(CC) to include some compiler flags. This was fixed somewhere in 2.3.3x. Peter - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
[rth] > > Which was a nice idea, but it doesn't actually work. Changes > > in spec file format between versions makes this fall over. [Dominik Kubla] > Wow. So much for reading the manual... well, that's considered > cheating anyway, isn't it? I know this was true at one time -- egcs couldn't read 2.7 spec files, or something like that. (I remember at the time thinking "so much for the great and glorious '-V' theory".) But I think it's since been fixed: $ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.2/specs gcc version 2.95.2 2220 (Debian GNU/Linux) $ gcc -V2.7.2.3 -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.7.2.3/specs gcc driver version 2.95.2 2220 (Debian GNU/Linux) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3 Is there more subtle breakage? Peter - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
[rth] Which was a nice idea, but it doesn't actually work. Changes in spec file format between versions makes this fall over. [Dominik Kubla] Wow. So much for reading the manual... well, that's considered cheating anyway, isn't it? I know this was true at one time -- egcs couldn't read 2.7 spec files, or something like that. (I remember at the time thinking "so much for the great and glorious '-V' theory".) But I think it's since been fixed: $ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.2/specs gcc version 2.95.2 2220 (Debian GNU/Linux) $ gcc -V2.7.2.3 -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.7.2.3/specs gcc driver version 2.95.2 2220 (Debian GNU/Linux) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3 Is there more subtle breakage? Peter - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
[Rusty] CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel No, environment doesn't override make variables by default. This works on any shell: make CC=egcs targets If you're going to get pedantic, that won't work either -- since the makefiles in kernels 2.0 and 2.2 expect $(CC) to include some compiler flags. This was fixed somewhere in 2.3.3x. Peter - 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/
Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x, 2.4.x(pre?) nowadays? I've pretty much kept gcc 2.7.2.3 around just for compiling the kernel however now I hear you need egcs to compile 2.4? I don't mind keeping 2.7.2.3 around in its own installation directory just for the purpose of doing kernel work however from a previous post I've now got the impression that egcs has become the recommended compiler? If I'm going to keep a secondary compiler around (outside of gcc 2.95.2 which I still hear is no good for kernel compiles) just for kernel work I'd prefer to use my disk space on the recommended one. [Rusty] CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel No, environment doesn't override make variables by default. This works on any shell: make CC=egcs targets If you're going to get pedantic, that won't work either -- since the makefiles in kernels 2.0 and 2.2 expect $(CC) to include some compiler flags. This was fixed somewhere in 2.3.3x. Peter - - 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/
Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x, 2.4.x(pre?) nowadays? * 2.91.66 aka egcs 1.1.2. It has been officially blessed for 2.4 and has been given an informal thumbs-up by Alan for 2.2. (It does NOT work for 2.0, if you still care about that.) * 2.7.2.3 works for 2.2 (and 2.0) but NOT for 2.4. * 2.95.2 seems to work with both 2.2 and 2.4 (no known bugs, AFAIK) and many of us use it, but it is a little riskier than egcs. * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. Peter - 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/
Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Peter Samuelson wrote: So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x, 2.4.x(pre?) nowadays? * 2.91.66 aka egcs 1.1.2. It has been officially blessed for 2.4 and has been given an informal thumbs-up by Alan for 2.2. (It does NOT work for 2.0, if you still care about that.) * 2.7.2.3 works for 2.2 (and 2.0) but NOT for 2.4. * 2.95.2 seems to work with both 2.2 and 2.4 (no known bugs, AFAIK) and many of us use it, but it is a little riskier than egcs. * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of preprocessor warnings in some drivers. - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:05:43AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: But I think it's since been fixed: No. Is there more subtle breakage? Yes. r~ - 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/
Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Martin Dalecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Peter Samuelson wrote: [...] * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of preprocessor warnings in some drivers. CVS (from 20001028 or so) gave a 2.4.0.10.6/i686 that crashed on boot, no time to dig deeper yet. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, ChileFax: +56 32 797513 - 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/
Re: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:50:07PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote: Martin Dalecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Peter Samuelson wrote: [...] * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel. Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of preprocessor warnings in some drivers. CVS (from 20001028 or so) gave a 2.4.0.10.6/i686 that crashed on boot, no time to dig deeper yet. CVS 2.97 is known to miscompile e.g. buffer.c. Jakub - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:45:13 +0200, > Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?). > > You can have multiple versions of gcc installed, just select the one to > use when you compile the kernel. > > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel > CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel No, environment doesn't override make variables by default. This works on any shell: make CC=egcs Rusty. -- Hacking time. - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:45:13 +0200, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?). You can have multiple versions of gcc installed, just select the one to use when you compile the kernel. CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel No, environment doesn't override make variables by default. This works on any shell: make CC=egcs targets Rusty. -- Hacking time. - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Dominik Kubla wrote: > Even simpler: "gcc -V 2.7.2.3" or "gcc -V 2.95.2" or whatever... Which was a nice idea, but it doesn't actually work. Changes in spec file format between versions makes this fall over. r~ - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Dominik Kubla wrote: Even simpler: "gcc -V 2.7.2.3" or "gcc -V 2.95.2" or whatever... Which was a nice idea, but it doesn't actually work. Changes in spec file format between versions makes this fall over. r~ - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:45:13 +0200, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?). You can have multiple versions of gcc installed, just select the one to use when you compile the kernel. CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
> 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
> 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?). There has only been one know egcs 1.1 build problem found in the last 9 months or so (the fpu emu one). I really dont think using egcs 1.1.2 to build 2.2 kernels is a problem. In fact its probably the default nowdays - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
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? Maybe they need -fno-strict-aliasing... is that what you are referring to? Regards, Jeff -- Jeff Garzik| "Mind if I drive?" -Sam Building 1024 | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the MandrakeSoft | dash and screaming like a cheerleader." | -Max - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Hi! > > if the person who sent you the -pre4 patch against module.c > > had Cc:'ed this mailing list then your kernel would do > > something useful when compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3. > > It seems that gcc-2.7.2.3 is terminally ill. I'd rather change > Documentation/Changes, and just document the fact. > > These kinds of subtle work-arounds for gcc bugs are not really acceptable, > nor is it worthwhile complaining when somebody does development with a gcc > that is _not_ broken, and doesn't notice that some random gcc bug breaks > the kernel for others. 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?). Pavel -- I'm [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Hi! if the person who sent you the -pre4 patch against module.c had Cc:'ed this mailing list then your kernel would do something useful when compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3. It seems that gcc-2.7.2.3 is terminally ill. I'd rather change Documentation/Changes, and just document the fact. These kinds of subtle work-arounds for gcc bugs are not really acceptable, nor is it worthwhile complaining when somebody does development with a gcc that is _not_ broken, and doesn't notice that some random gcc bug breaks the kernel for others. 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?). Pavel -- I'm [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
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? Maybe they need -fno-strict-aliasing... is that what you are referring to? Regards, Jeff -- Jeff Garzik| "Mind if I drive?" -Sam Building 1024 | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the MandrakeSoft | dash and screaming like a cheerleader." | -Max - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:45:13 +0200, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?). You can have multiple versions of gcc installed, just select the one to use when you compile the kernel. CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > if the person who sent you the -pre4 patch against module.c > > had Cc:'ed this mailing list then your kernel would do > > something useful when compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3. > > It seems that gcc-2.7.2.3 is terminally ill. I'd rather change > Documentation/Changes, and just document the fact. That seems best. > These kinds of subtle work-arounds for gcc bugs are not really acceptable, > nor is it worthwhile complaining when somebody does development with a gcc > that is _not_ broken, and doesn't notice that some random gcc bug breaks > the kernel for others. No, that would be an unreasonable complaint. My gripe is unrelated to gcc - it concerns people who send you patches and keep everyone else, including the nominal maintainer in the dark. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how the evasion of peer review strengthens Linux. Anyway, let's run the numbers on gcc: gcc-2.7.2.3 versus gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) versus gcc-20001009 (three-week-old snapshot) Compilation time (make -j3 bzImage, dual CPU) gcc-2.7.2.3: 325.02s user 31.98s system 190% cpu 3:07.77 total gcc-2.91.66: 356.51s user 30.96s system 195% cpu 3:17.71 total gcc-20001009: 578.99s user 43.51s system 197% cpu 5:15.67 total Memory footprint: textdata bss dec hex filename(Normalised) gcc-2.7.2.3: 1383419 228621 247624 1859664 1c6050 vmlinux.2.7.2.3 1.00 gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) 1463242 239353 250004 1952599 1dcb57 vmlinux-2.91.66 1.05 gcc-20001009 144 244153 245620 1989767 1e5c87 vmlinux-20001009 1.07 A lot of this is due to more aggressive alignment in the two newer compilers, so we add -malign-loops=0 -malign-functions=0 -malign-jumps=0 and get: gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) (-malign) 1429267 239353 250004 1918624 1d46a0 vmlinux-2.91.66-maligns 1.03 gcc-20001009 (-malign) 1422275 244153 245620 1912048 1d2cf0 vmlinux-20001009-maligns 1.03 but we note that the two more recent compilers still do a `.align 32' in front of `.rodata/.string'. This is not configurable on the gcc command line (it should be). Thank heavens for the GPL: 1367864 238713 250004 1856581 1c5445 vmlinux-2.91.66-maligns-string0.998 And replacing `-O2' with `-Os': 1358473 238713 250004 1847190 1c2f96 vmlinux 0.993 Summary? With `-malign-loops=0 -malign-functions=0 -malign-jumps=0 -Os' and a little patch, egcs-1.1.2 actually generates shorter code than 2.7.2.3 and is not a significantly slower compiler. - - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Andrew Morton wrote: if the person who sent you the -pre4 patch against module.c had Cc:'ed this mailing list then your kernel would do something useful when compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3. It seems that gcc-2.7.2.3 is terminally ill. I'd rather change Documentation/Changes, and just document the fact. That seems best. These kinds of subtle work-arounds for gcc bugs are not really acceptable, nor is it worthwhile complaining when somebody does development with a gcc that is _not_ broken, and doesn't notice that some random gcc bug breaks the kernel for others. No, that would be an unreasonable complaint. My gripe is unrelated to gcc - it concerns people who send you patches and keep everyone else, including the nominal maintainer in the dark. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how the evasion of peer review strengthens Linux. Anyway, let's run the numbers on gcc: gcc-2.7.2.3 versus gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) versus gcc-20001009 (three-week-old snapshot) Compilation time (make -j3 bzImage, dual CPU) gcc-2.7.2.3: 325.02s user 31.98s system 190% cpu 3:07.77 total gcc-2.91.66: 356.51s user 30.96s system 195% cpu 3:17.71 total gcc-20001009: 578.99s user 43.51s system 197% cpu 5:15.67 total Memory footprint: textdata bss dec hex filename(Normalised) gcc-2.7.2.3: 1383419 228621 247624 1859664 1c6050 vmlinux.2.7.2.3 1.00 gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) 1463242 239353 250004 1952599 1dcb57 vmlinux-2.91.66 1.05 gcc-20001009 144 244153 245620 1989767 1e5c87 vmlinux-20001009 1.07 A lot of this is due to more aggressive alignment in the two newer compilers, so we add -malign-loops=0 -malign-functions=0 -malign-jumps=0 and get: gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) (-malign) 1429267 239353 250004 1918624 1d46a0 vmlinux-2.91.66-maligns 1.03 gcc-20001009 (-malign) 1422275 244153 245620 1912048 1d2cf0 vmlinux-20001009-maligns 1.03 but we note that the two more recent compilers still do a `.align 32' in front of `.rodata/.string'. This is not configurable on the gcc command line (it should be). Thank heavens for the GPL: 1367864 238713 250004 1856581 1c5445 vmlinux-2.91.66-maligns-string0.998 And replacing `-O2' with `-Os': 1358473 238713 250004 1847190 1c2f96 vmlinux 0.993 Summary? With `-malign-loops=0 -malign-functions=0 -malign-jumps=0 -Os' and a little patch, egcs-1.1.2 actually generates shorter code than 2.7.2.3 and is not a significantly slower compiler. - - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Andrew Morton wrote: > > if the person who sent you the -pre4 patch against module.c > had Cc:'ed this mailing list then your kernel would do > something useful when compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3. It seems that gcc-2.7.2.3 is terminally ill. I'd rather change Documentation/Changes, and just document the fact. These kinds of subtle work-arounds for gcc bugs are not really acceptable, nor is it worthwhile complaining when somebody does development with a gcc that is _not_ broken, and doesn't notice that some random gcc bug breaks the kernel for others. Linus - 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/
Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Andrew Morton wrote: if the person who sent you the -pre4 patch against module.c had Cc:'ed this mailing list then your kernel would do something useful when compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3. It seems that gcc-2.7.2.3 is terminally ill. I'd rather change Documentation/Changes, and just document the fact. These kinds of subtle work-arounds for gcc bugs are not really acceptable, nor is it worthwhile complaining when somebody does development with a gcc that is _not_ broken, and doesn't notice that some random gcc bug breaks the kernel for others. Linus - 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/
