Re: recommended gcc compiler version
On 24 Dec 2000, Kai Henningsen wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anuradha Ratnaweera) wrote on 22.12.00 in ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > For i386 > > > > > > 2.2.18 > > > gcc 2.7.2 or egcs-1.1.2 > > > > Just a remainder for debian users. There is a debian package gcc272 which > > is said to be the "GNU C compiler's C part", for "backword compatibility > > purposes". I recompiled my kernel after an > > > > apt-get install gcc272 > > > > and after setting > > > > HOSTGCC = gcc272 > > > > in kernel source tree Makerile. > > I recently compiled 2.2.18 and noticed that make-kpkg (from kernel-package > - don't compile kernels on Debian without it!) did that automatically. That is a very good thing. It would have been even better if the dependencies of the kernel-package does include gcc272 rather than giving a "command not found" error when make-kpkg is run without gcc272 installed. It might leave a new user clueless. Anuradha - 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 gcc compiler version
On 24 Dec 2000, Kai Henningsen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anuradha Ratnaweera) wrote on 22.12.00 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote: For i386 2.2.18 gcc 2.7.2 or egcs-1.1.2 Just a remainder for debian users. There is a debian package gcc272 which is said to be the "GNU C compiler's C part", for "backword compatibility purposes". I recompiled my kernel after an apt-get install gcc272 and after setting HOSTGCC = gcc272 in kernel source tree Makerile. I recently compiled 2.2.18 and noticed that make-kpkg (from kernel-package - don't compile kernels on Debian without it!) did that automatically. That is a very good thing. It would have been even better if the dependencies of the kernel-package does include gcc272 rather than giving a "command not found" error when make-kpkg is run without gcc272 installed. It might leave a new user clueless. Anuradha - 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 gcc compiler version
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anuradha Ratnaweera) wrote on 22.12.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > For i386 > > > > 2.2.18 > > gcc 2.7.2 or egcs-1.1.2 > > Just a remainder for debian users. There is a debian package gcc272 which > is said to be the "GNU C compiler's C part", for "backword compatibility > purposes". I recompiled my kernel after an > > apt-get install gcc272 > > and after setting > > HOSTGCC = gcc272 > > in kernel source tree Makerile. I recently compiled 2.2.18 and noticed that make-kpkg (from kernel-package - don't compile kernels on Debian without it!) did that automatically. Incidentally, I really like the Flavours patch. MfG Kai - 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 gcc compiler version
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anuradha Ratnaweera) wrote on 22.12.00 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote: For i386 2.2.18 gcc 2.7.2 or egcs-1.1.2 Just a remainder for debian users. There is a debian package gcc272 which is said to be the "GNU C compiler's C part", for "backword compatibility purposes". I recompiled my kernel after an apt-get install gcc272 and after setting HOSTGCC = gcc272 in kernel source tree Makerile. I recently compiled 2.2.18 and noticed that make-kpkg (from kernel-package - don't compile kernels on Debian without it!) did that automatically. Incidentally, I really like the Flavours patch. MfG Kai - 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 gcc compiler version
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Tim Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >So > >egcs-1.1.2 is good for either, 2.7.2 is OK for 2.2, bad for 2.4. 2.95.2 and > >later are risky. RedHat just released a bugfixed "2.96" which is an unknown > >quantity AFAIK. Anybody brave enough to try it should probably post their > >results. > > Note that despite my public comments about it beign a bad idea to ship > extremely untested compilers in a major release, I actually think that > it would be wonderful to have people who are ready to face the > consequences to try the new 2.96. > > It's not been all that widely tested, but if you kno a bit about what > you're doing (or want to learn), gcc-2.96 _does_ potentially create > better code, and if nobody is willing to test it, any potential bugs (be > they in the kernel sources and triggered by a smarter compiler, or in > the compiler itself) won't be found. > > So please do try it out, but please mention the fact if you end up > having to report a bug (it won't make your bug-report be ignored, don't > ever worry about something like that. But i would be good to have an > older compiler handy to correlate the bug with the compiler for sure). > > In fact, I'd love to hear about experiences even with the CVS snapshots. > I just don't like them showing up in distributions ;) > > Linus I've been using 2.96 for the last couple of kernel compiles, and it's been working fine (pasting warnings and all). This is the 2nd-to-latest update from RH 7.0. The only issue I have is the very occasional Signal 11--but I had those with kgcc, as well, so I don't reckon those are compiler-related. Right now, I have test12. This is on my desktop machine, doing normal desktop stuff (finances, StarOffice, Netscape, Java development, etc). Seems to be working well, and test12 runs *much* faster than previous kernels... -- Matthew Vanecek perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting in the way of something... - 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 gcc compiler version
Linus Torvalds wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So egcs-1.1.2 is good for either, 2.7.2 is OK for 2.2, bad for 2.4. 2.95.2 and later are risky. RedHat just released a bugfixed "2.96" which is an unknown quantity AFAIK. Anybody brave enough to try it should probably post their results. Note that despite my public comments about it beign a bad idea to ship extremely untested compilers in a major release, I actually think that it would be wonderful to have people who are ready to face the consequences to try the new 2.96. It's not been all that widely tested, but if you kno a bit about what you're doing (or want to learn), gcc-2.96 _does_ potentially create better code, and if nobody is willing to test it, any potential bugs (be they in the kernel sources and triggered by a smarter compiler, or in the compiler itself) won't be found. So please do try it out, but please mention the fact if you end up having to report a bug (it won't make your bug-report be ignored, don't ever worry about something like that. But i would be good to have an older compiler handy to correlate the bug with the compiler for sure). In fact, I'd love to hear about experiences even with the CVS snapshots. I just don't like them showing up in distributions ;) Linus I've been using 2.96 for the last couple of kernel compiles, and it's been working fine (pasting warnings and all). This is the 2nd-to-latest update from RH 7.0. The only issue I have is the very occasional Signal 11--but I had those with kgcc, as well, so I don't reckon those are compiler-related. Right now, I have test12. This is on my desktop machine, doing normal desktop stuff (finances, StarOffice, Netscape, Java development, etc). Seems to be working well, and test12 runs *much* faster than previous kernels... -- Matthew Vanecek perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting in the way of something... - 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 gcc compiler version
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >2.4.0test > egcs-1.1.2 > (gcc 2.95 miscompiles some of the long long uses) > Red Hat's 2.96 seems to generate valid kernels but don't expect > sympathy if you report a bug in one built that way Now, now, I'd love to se reports of expecially the new updated compiler. I've not actually seen a single report of problems for the kernel even with the old 2.96, it's just that I've seen too many user-space problems that I would be hesitant to use it for the kernel. Despite my dislike of releasing snaopshot compilers, I'd _much_ rather see Red Hat just dropping their "kgcc" thing, and in order to do that people do ned to test with the new compiler. I just want people to mention the fact, so that I can correlate any bug-reports with a compiler version. Just in case. It can be important (and not just because of compiler bugs, but due to real kernel bugs that just were hidden by pure luck with other compilers). And it helps a LOT if you have another compiler available to compare with. 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: recommended gcc compiler version
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >So >egcs-1.1.2 is good for either, 2.7.2 is OK for 2.2, bad for 2.4. 2.95.2 and >later are risky. RedHat just released a bugfixed "2.96" which is an unknown >quantity AFAIK. Anybody brave enough to try it should probably post their >results. Note that despite my public comments about it beign a bad idea to ship extremely untested compilers in a major release, I actually think that it would be wonderful to have people who are ready to face the consequences to try the new 2.96. It's not been all that widely tested, but if you kno a bit about what you're doing (or want to learn), gcc-2.96 _does_ potentially create better code, and if nobody is willing to test it, any potential bugs (be they in the kernel sources and triggered by a smarter compiler, or in the compiler itself) won't be found. So please do try it out, but please mention the fact if you end up having to report a bug (it won't make your bug-report be ignored, don't ever worry about something like that. But i would be good to have an older compiler handy to correlate the bug with the compiler for sure). In fact, I'd love to hear about experiences even with the CVS snapshots. I just don't like them showing up in distributions ;) 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: recommended gcc compiler version
Barry writes: > > Linux 2.2.18? > > gcc 2.7.2.3 is safest, but egcs 1.1.2 should be safe even for > mission-critical stuff. gcc 2.95.2 seems to work for many people, but > isn't necessarily safe. Speaking of this - I had problems with a gcc 2.95.2 compiled 2.2.18+IDE patch, yet the same kernel compiled with egcs is OK. On one system the 2.95.2 kernel complained at partition checking time, but seemed to work OK, and on an SMP box, the kernel would just panic at partition checking time. If anyone is interested in looking at this (gcc folks or whatever), I have KDB in that kernel and can send you a stack trace at the panic. Otherwise, I'll just stick with egcs. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert - 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 gcc compiler version
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > For i386 > > 2.2.18 > gcc 2.7.2 or egcs-1.1.2 Just a remainder for debian users. There is a debian package gcc272 which is said to be the "GNU C compiler's C part", for "backword compatibility purposes". I recompiled my kernel after an apt-get install gcc272 and after setting HOSTGCC = gcc272 in kernel source tree Makerile. Anuradha - 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 gcc compiler version
Alan Cox wrote: [ compiler for 2.4 kernels] > Red Hat's 2.96 seems to generate valid kernels but don't expect > sympathy if you report a bug in one built that way No sympathy? More like "lots of sympathy": "A. Poor soul" :-) Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - 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 gcc compiler version
> This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler versions > for compiling, > > Linux 2.2.18? > Linux 2.4.0? For i386 2.2.18 gcc 2.7.2 or egcs-1.1.2 gcc 2.95 and current Red Hat 2.96 both seem to generate valid kernels but are not recommended (insufficient testing) 2.4.0test egcs-1.1.2 (gcc 2.95 miscompiles some of the long long uses) Red Hat's 2.96 seems to generate valid kernels but don't expect sympathy if you report a bug in one built that way - 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 gcc compiler version
This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler versions for compiling, Linux 2.2.18? Linux 2.4.0? For i386 2.2.18 gcc 2.7.2 or egcs-1.1.2 gcc 2.95 and current Red Hat 2.96 both seem to generate valid kernels but are not recommended (insufficient testing) 2.4.0test egcs-1.1.2 (gcc 2.95 miscompiles some of the long long uses) Red Hat's 2.96 seems to generate valid kernels but don't expect sympathy if you report a bug in one built that way - 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 gcc compiler version
Alan Cox wrote: [ compiler for 2.4 kernels] Red Hat's 2.96 seems to generate valid kernels but don't expect sympathy if you report a bug in one built that way No sympathy? More like "lots of sympathy": "A. Poor soul" :-) Roger. -- ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - 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 gcc compiler version
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote: For i386 2.2.18 gcc 2.7.2 or egcs-1.1.2 Just a remainder for debian users. There is a debian package gcc272 which is said to be the "GNU C compiler's C part", for "backword compatibility purposes". I recompiled my kernel after an apt-get install gcc272 and after setting HOSTGCC = gcc272 in kernel source tree Makerile. Anuradha - 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 gcc compiler version
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So egcs-1.1.2 is good for either, 2.7.2 is OK for 2.2, bad for 2.4. 2.95.2 and later are risky. RedHat just released a bugfixed "2.96" which is an unknown quantity AFAIK. Anybody brave enough to try it should probably post their results. Note that despite my public comments about it beign a bad idea to ship extremely untested compilers in a major release, I actually think that it would be wonderful to have people who are ready to face the consequences to try the new 2.96. It's not been all that widely tested, but if you kno a bit about what you're doing (or want to learn), gcc-2.96 _does_ potentially create better code, and if nobody is willing to test it, any potential bugs (be they in the kernel sources and triggered by a smarter compiler, or in the compiler itself) won't be found. So please do try it out, but please mention the fact if you end up having to report a bug (it won't make your bug-report be ignored, don't ever worry about something like that. But i would be good to have an older compiler handy to correlate the bug with the compiler for sure). In fact, I'd love to hear about experiences even with the CVS snapshots. I just don't like them showing up in distributions ;) 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: recommended gcc compiler version
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2.4.0test egcs-1.1.2 (gcc 2.95 miscompiles some of the long long uses) Red Hat's 2.96 seems to generate valid kernels but don't expect sympathy if you report a bug in one built that way Now, now, I'd love to se reports of expecially the new updated compiler. I've not actually seen a single report of problems for the kernel even with the old 2.96, it's just that I've seen too many user-space problems that I would be hesitant to use it for the kernel. Despite my dislike of releasing snaopshot compilers, I'd _much_ rather see Red Hat just dropping their "kgcc" thing, and in order to do that people do ned to test with the new compiler. I just want people to mention the fact, so that I can correlate any bug-reports with a compiler version. Just in case. It can be important (and not just because of compiler bugs, but due to real kernel bugs that just were hidden by pure luck with other compilers). And it helps a LOT if you have another compiler available to compare with. 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: recommended gcc compiler version
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The recommended compiler version is not longer the same for the 2.2 and 2.4 kernels. >From Documentation/Changes in 2.4 (test12): "The recommended compiler for the kernel is egcs 1.1.2 (gcc 2.91.66), and it should be used when you need absolute stability. You may use gcc 2.95.2 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. Note that gcc 2.7.2.3 is no longer a supported kernel compiler. The kernel no longer works around bugs in gcc 2.7.2.3 and, in fact, will refuse to be compiled with it." For 2.2.18: " Note that the latest compilers (pgcc, gcc 2.95) may do Bad Things while compiling your kernel, particularly if absurd optimizations (like -O9) are used. Caveat emptor. In general, however, gcc-2.7.2.3 and egcs 1.1.2 are known to be stable on x86, while gcc 2.95 and others have not been as thoroughly tested yet." So egcs-1.1.2 is good for either, 2.7.2 is OK for 2.2, bad for 2.4. 2.95.2 and later are risky. RedHat just released a bugfixed "2.96" which is an unknown quantity AFAIK. Anybody brave enough to try it should probably post their results. No compiler is bug-free. In general, you will get the most reliable results when you use what most everybody else is using, 'cos that's how the bugs get fixed. YMMV :-) Regards, Tim On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 01:19:07AM -0500, Matthew D. Pitts wrote: > Robert, > gcc 2.7.2.3 is the safest, but egcs 1.1.2 will work. any kernels built with > gcc 2.95.x work but can be buggy. > > Matthew Pitts > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - Original Message - > From: Robert B. Easter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:20 PM > Subject: recommended gcc compiler version > > > > This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler > versions > > for compiling, > > > > Linux 2.2.18? > > > > Linux 2.4.0? > > > > > > I'd rather use the recommended version than not and have difficult bugs. > > > > Thanks. If there is a FAQ, kindy direct me to it, or, if this info isn't > in > > there specificly, perhaps a FAQ maintainer can add this stuff. > > > > -- > > Robert B. Easter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - > > - CompTechNews Message Board http://www.comptechnews.com/ - > > - CompTechServ Tech Services http://www.comptechserv.com/ - > > -- http://www.comptechnews.com/~reaster/ > > - > > 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/ > > - > 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/ -- Tim Wright - [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM Linux Technology Center, Beaverton, Oregon "Nobody ever said I was charming, they said "Rimmer, you're a git!"" RD VI - 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 gcc compiler version
Robert B. Easter wrote: > This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler versions > for compiling, This is discussed in the Documentation/Changes file, in a given kernel's source. Brief summaries follow (which assume you're using an x86 CPU). > Linux 2.2.18? gcc 2.7.2.3 is safest, but egcs 1.1.2 should be safe even for mission-critical stuff. gcc 2.95.2 seems to work for many people, but isn't necessarily safe. > Linux 2.4.0? egcs 1.1.2 is the safe choice, but gcc 2.95.2 seems to work. gcc 2.7.2.3 miscompiles 2.4 more often than not, so 2.4 has a preprocessor check that stops any attempts to compile it with 2.7.2.3. -Barry K. Nathan <[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: recommended gcc compiler version
Robert, gcc 2.7.2.3 is the safest, but egcs 1.1.2 will work. any kernels built with gcc 2.95.x work but can be buggy. Matthew Pitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Robert B. Easter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:20 PM Subject: recommended gcc compiler version > This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler versions > for compiling, > > Linux 2.2.18? > > Linux 2.4.0? > > > I'd rather use the recommended version than not and have difficult bugs. > > Thanks. If there is a FAQ, kindy direct me to it, or, if this info isn't in > there specificly, perhaps a FAQ maintainer can add this stuff. > > -- > Robert B. Easter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - > - CompTechNews Message Board http://www.comptechnews.com/ - > - CompTechServ Tech Services http://www.comptechserv.com/ - > -- http://www.comptechnews.com/~reaster/ > - > 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/ - 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 gcc compiler version
This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler versions for compiling, Linux 2.2.18? Linux 2.4.0? I'd rather use the recommended version than not and have difficult bugs. Thanks. If there is a FAQ, kindy direct me to it, or, if this info isn't in there specificly, perhaps a FAQ maintainer can add this stuff. -- Robert B. Easter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - CompTechNews Message Board http://www.comptechnews.com/ - - CompTechServ Tech Services http://www.comptechserv.com/ - -- http://www.comptechnews.com/~reaster/ - 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 gcc compiler version
This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler versions for compiling, Linux 2.2.18? Linux 2.4.0? I'd rather use the recommended version than not and have difficult bugs. Thanks. If there is a FAQ, kindy direct me to it, or, if this info isn't in there specificly, perhaps a FAQ maintainer can add this stuff. -- Robert B. Easter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - CompTechNews Message Board http://www.comptechnews.com/ - - CompTechServ Tech Services http://www.comptechserv.com/ - -- http://www.comptechnews.com/~reaster/ - 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 gcc compiler version
Robert, gcc 2.7.2.3 is the safest, but egcs 1.1.2 will work. any kernels built with gcc 2.95.x work but can be buggy. Matthew Pitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Robert B. Easter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:20 PM Subject: recommended gcc compiler version This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler versions for compiling, Linux 2.2.18? Linux 2.4.0? I'd rather use the recommended version than not and have difficult bugs. Thanks. If there is a FAQ, kindy direct me to it, or, if this info isn't in there specificly, perhaps a FAQ maintainer can add this stuff. -- Robert B. Easter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - CompTechNews Message Board http://www.comptechnews.com/ - - CompTechServ Tech Services http://www.comptechserv.com/ - -- http://www.comptechnews.com/~reaster/ - 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/ - 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 gcc compiler version
Robert B. Easter wrote: This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler versions for compiling, This is discussed in the Documentation/Changes file, in a given kernel's source. Brief summaries follow (which assume you're using an x86 CPU). Linux 2.2.18? gcc 2.7.2.3 is safest, but egcs 1.1.2 should be safe even for mission-critical stuff. gcc 2.95.2 seems to work for many people, but isn't necessarily safe. Linux 2.4.0? egcs 1.1.2 is the safe choice, but gcc 2.95.2 seems to work. gcc 2.7.2.3 miscompiles 2.4 more often than not, so 2.4 has a preprocessor check that stops any attempts to compile it with 2.7.2.3. -Barry K. Nathan [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: recommended gcc compiler version
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The recommended compiler version is not longer the same for the 2.2 and 2.4 kernels. From Documentation/Changes in 2.4 (test12): "The recommended compiler for the kernel is egcs 1.1.2 (gcc 2.91.66), and it should be used when you need absolute stability. You may use gcc 2.95.2 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. Note that gcc 2.7.2.3 is no longer a supported kernel compiler. The kernel no longer works around bugs in gcc 2.7.2.3 and, in fact, will refuse to be compiled with it." For 2.2.18: " Note that the latest compilers (pgcc, gcc 2.95) may do Bad Things while compiling your kernel, particularly if absurd optimizations (like -O9) are used. Caveat emptor. In general, however, gcc-2.7.2.3 and egcs 1.1.2 are known to be stable on x86, while gcc 2.95 and others have not been as thoroughly tested yet." So egcs-1.1.2 is good for either, 2.7.2 is OK for 2.2, bad for 2.4. 2.95.2 and later are risky. RedHat just released a bugfixed "2.96" which is an unknown quantity AFAIK. Anybody brave enough to try it should probably post their results. No compiler is bug-free. In general, you will get the most reliable results when you use what most everybody else is using, 'cos that's how the bugs get fixed. YMMV :-) Regards, Tim On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 01:19:07AM -0500, Matthew D. Pitts wrote: Robert, gcc 2.7.2.3 is the safest, but egcs 1.1.2 will work. any kernels built with gcc 2.95.x work but can be buggy. Matthew Pitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Robert B. Easter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:20 PM Subject: recommended gcc compiler version This is a newbie question, but what are the recommended gcc compiler versions for compiling, Linux 2.2.18? Linux 2.4.0? I'd rather use the recommended version than not and have difficult bugs. Thanks. If there is a FAQ, kindy direct me to it, or, if this info isn't in there specificly, perhaps a FAQ maintainer can add this stuff. -- Robert B. Easter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - CompTechNews Message Board http://www.comptechnews.com/ - - CompTechServ Tech Services http://www.comptechserv.com/ - -- http://www.comptechnews.com/~reaster/ - 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/ - 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/ -- Tim Wright - [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM Linux Technology Center, Beaverton, Oregon "Nobody ever said I was charming, they said "Rimmer, you're a git!"" RD VI - 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/
