David Relson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander,
>
> There was a recent message on the Linux Kernel Mailing List - in the last
> week or two.
>
> My recollection is that he said 2.96 is working fine now and that he uses
> 2.96 for all his kernel work.
>
> He didn't say that the kernel req
At 12:14 AM 5/13/01, you wrote:
>Submitted 12-May-01 by David Relson:
> > He didn't say that the kernel requires 2.96.
>
>I beg to differ:
>
>On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:11:31PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > This is from Linus tree. You currently need gcc 2.96 or higher to
> > build the 2.4.x kernel.
Submitted 12-May-01 by David Relson:
> He didn't say that the kernel requires 2.96.
I beg to differ:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:11:31PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> This is from Linus tree. You currently need gcc 2.96 or higher to
> build the 2.4.x kernel.
--
Anton Graham
Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
> So sprach Guillaume Cottenceau am Fri, May 04, 2001 at 06:48:04PM +0200:
> > Did you know that Alan Cox recently said on LKML that Linux kernel 2.4.3
> > now needs to be compiled with gcc >= 2.96 ?
>
> Where?
>
> Alexander Skwar
> --
> How to quote: http://learn.to/
Alexander,
There was a recent message on the Linux Kernel Mailing List - in the last
week or two.
My recollection is that he said 2.96 is working fine now and that he uses
2.96 for all his kernel work.
He didn't say that the kernel requires 2.96.
David
At 06:57 PM 5/12/01, you wrote:
>So sp
So sprach David Relson am Sat, May 12, 2001 at 05:28:39PM -0400:
> Alexander,
>
> I usually take a look at www.rpmfind.net when I want a new version of any rpm.
?
I wanted to know where Alan Cox said the statement I quoted.
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) htt
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So sprach Guillaume Cottenceau am Fri, May 04, 2001 at 06:48:04PM +0200:
> > Did you know that Alan Cox recently said on LKML that Linux kernel 2.4.3
> > now needs to be compiled with gcc >= 2.96 ?
>
> Where?
RTFM.
"on LKML".
--
Guillaume Cotte
So sprach Guillaume Cottenceau am Fri, May 04, 2001 at 06:48:04PM +0200:
> Did you know that Alan Cox recently said on LKML that Linux kernel 2.4.3
> now needs to be compiled with gcc >= 2.96 ?
Where?
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english)
Alexander,
I usually take a look at www.rpmfind.net when I want a new version of any rpm.
David
David Relson Osage Software Systems, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ann Arbor, MI 48103
www.osagesoftware.com tel: 73
Submitted 05-May-01 by Alexander Skwar:
> Uhm, and the fix is to break standards compliance so that really broken
> stuff works? I don't think this is right, I rather think the right way to
> go would be to fix the really broken things. Also, I doubt that gcc 3.00,
> once it comes out, will work
Anton Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, are we soon to see kernels compiled with gcc instead of egcs?
not for a while, just for safely...
On Sat, 5 May 2001, J . A . Magallon wrote:
>
> And you should realize that this was written just after the initial release
> of 2.96 by RedHat. Now, they are at revision 81, so all the initial stupid
> bugs the optimizer did are gone. After that silly bugs wiped, 2.96 is
Apart from the one bug
So sprach Anton Graham am Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:19:34PM -0700:
> This is all true, but being less broken is frequently seen as more
> broken. When Opera and Netscape were, respectively, the most standards
> compliant browsers out there, they were frequently considered broken
> specifically beca
On 05.05 Anton Graham wrote:
> Submitted 04-May-01 by Guillaume Cottenceau:
> > Did you know that Alan Cox recently said on LKML that Linux kernel 2.4.3
> > now needs to be compiled with gcc >= 2.96 ?
>
> So, are we soon to see kernels compiled with gcc instead of egcs?
>
> > Please also read:
So sprach Guillaume Cottenceau am Fri, May 04, 2001 at 06:48:04PM +0200:
> Did you know that Alan Cox recently said on LKML that Linux kernel 2.4.3
> now needs to be compiled with gcc >= 2.96 ?
Where? Could you post a direct pointer to the mail?
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.
Submitted 04-May-01 by Guillaume Cottenceau:
> Did you know that Alan Cox recently said on LKML that Linux kernel 2.4.3
> now needs to be compiled with gcc >= 2.96 ?
So, are we soon to see kernels compiled with gcc instead of egcs?
> Please also read:
> http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html
This is
Lefebvre Hervé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering about GCC provided with LM 8.0
Actually gcc 2.96 is the most stable version of gcc currently. It fixes
many more bugs than it creates.
The reputation of being binary incompatible is mostly based on rumors: it
affects only dyn
Hi,
I was wondering about GCC provided with LM 8.0
Name: gcc Relocations: (not relocateable)
Version : 2.96 Vendor: MandrakeSoft
Release : 0.48mdk Build Date: dim 08 avr 2001
12:47:16 EDT
According to :
18 matches
Mail list logo