> Since egcs-1.1.2 and gcc 2.95 miscompile the kernel strstr code dont forget
> to stop those being used as well. Oh look you'll need CVS gcc to build the
> kernel... ah but wait that misbuilds DAC960.c...
How did you come to the conclusion that egcs-1.1.2 miscompiles the kernel?
I am using gcc ve
Alan Cox writes:
> [Albert Cahalan]
>> David Woodhouse writes:
>>> -a "$CC" = "gcc"
>>
>> Not worth it; they should upgrade the local gcc too.
>> If anything, they are getting a reminder that they need.
>
> The local gcc has no bearing on the compiler. The local
> compiler might not even be gcc
> David Woodhouse writes:
>
> > -a "$CC" = "gcc"
>
> Not worth it; they should upgrade the local gcc too.
> If anything, they are getting a reminder that they need.
The local gcc has no bearing on the compiler. The local compiler might not
even be gcc - eg if they are cross building off non L
David Woodhouse writes:
> -a "$CC" = "gcc"
Not worth it; they should upgrade the local gcc too.
If anything, they are getting a reminder that they need.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> if [ -e /bin/rpm ]; then
> X=`rpm -q gcc`
> if [ "$X" = "gcc-2.96-54" ]; then
> echo "*** GCC 2.96-54 will miscompile Reiserfs. Please update your
>compiler"
> echo "See http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHB
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 04:25:20AM +, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > You can do:
> > if [ "$CC" = gcc ]; then
> > echo 'inline void f(unsigned int n){int
>i,j=-1;for(i=0;i<10&&j<0;i++)if((1UL< > test.c
> > gcc -O2 -o test test.c
> > if ./test; then e
On 02.03 Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> didn't barf here with 2.96-70.
>
Does not barf nor 1 nor 0. Check return core (ie, echo $?).
--
J.A. Magallon $> cd pub
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] $> more beer
Linux we
> > compiler (e.g. on sparc64). This test will barf on gcc-2.96 up to -67 and
> > Jakub
>
> ehhmm..
>
> didn't barf here with 2.96-70.
Which is correct
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FA
> Please, do not do so. That depends on the PACKAGE name and version, and there
> is no standard way of versioning a patched gcc.
> The -54 is a RH'ism, for example Mandrake Cooker includes patches from
> different sources, and gcc is versioned like
>
> werewolf:~# rpm -q gcc
> gcc-2.96-0.33mdk
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> You can do:
> if [ "$CC" = gcc ]; then
> echo 'inline void f(unsigned int n){int
>i,j=-1;for(i=0;i<10&&j<0;i++)if((1UL< > test.c
> gcc -O2 -o test test.c
> if ./test; then echo "*** Please don't use this compiler to compile kernel"; fi
> rm -f t
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > It makes sense to refuse to build a piece of the kernel if it break's
> > > a machine - anything else is a timebomb waiting to explode.
> >
> > The logical conclusion of that is to replace the entire kernel tree with
> >
> > #er
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 02:58:14PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now, it seems to me, as long as the ReiserFS folks are going to be getting the
> bulk of the extra work(/mail/whatever) out of this, and they've been advised
> of the risks to their own person and are ok with that (which they
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 12:40:03AM +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> Please, do not do so. That depends on the PACKAGE name and version, and there
> is no standard way of versioning a patched gcc.
> The -54 is a RH'ism, for example Mandrake Cooker includes patches from
> different sources, and gcc
I would agree with you, and I was about to write something saying that trusting
that rpm is installed is bad, except that then I realized, only RedHat made this
error, and only RedHat installs need this protection.
Now, if we want to have a more general bad gcc's list, and we envision this code
e
On 02.02 Hans Reiser wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > Run a small shell check and let it fail if the shell stuff errors.
> >
> > The fragment you want is
> >
> > if [ -e /bin/rpm ]; then
> > X=`rpm -q gcc`
> > if [ "$X" = "gcc-2.96-54" ]; then
> > echo "*** GCC 2.96-
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 01:03:00AM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote:
> My design objective in ReiserFS is not to say that it wasn't my fault they had
> that bug because they are so ignorant about a filesystem that
> really isn't very important to them unless it screws up. My design objective is
> to ensu
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:39:18 -0500 (EST),
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Large numbers of people routinely build the kernel with 'unsupported' compilers
gcc version 2.96-ia64-000717 snap 001117 - works for me doing cross
compile from ia32 to ia64. Anybody adding #ifdef, please include thi
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > their kernel, something putting #ifdefs all over it will mean they have to
> > > mess around to fix too.
> > >
> > A moment of precision here. We won't test to see if the right compiler is used,
> > we will just test for the wrong one.
>
> Ok that makes a lot more sense
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > It makes sense to refuse to build a piece of the kernel if it break's
> > a machine - anything else is a timebomb waiting to explode.
>
> The logical conclusion of that is to replace the entire kernel tree with
>
> #error "compiler or program might have a bug. Aborting"
N
> my convenience matters as much as that of the users. I don't want to use
> #ifdefs, I want it to die explosively and verbosely informatively. make isn't
> the most natural language for that, but I am sure Yura can find a way.
Run a small shell check and let it fail if the shell stuff errors.
> > their kernel, something putting #ifdefs all over it will mean they have to
> > mess around to fix too.
> >
> A moment of precision here. We won't test to see if the right compiler is used,
> we will just test for the wrong one.
Ok that makes a lot more sense
-
To unsubscribe from this list
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > my convenience matters as much as that of the users. I don't want to use
> > #ifdefs, I want it to die explosively and verbosely informatively. make isn't
> > the most natural language for that, but I am sure Yura can find a way.
>
> Run a small shell check and let it fai
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Users cannot use gcc 2.96 as shipped in RedHat 7.0 if they want to use
> > reiserfs. It is that simple. How can you even consider defending allowing the
> > use of it without requiring a positive affirmation by the user that they don't
> > know what they are doing and want
Lets not go overboard Alan ;-)
> > It makes sense to refuse to build a piece of the kernel if it break's
> > a machine - anything else is a timebomb waiting to explode.
>
> The logical conclusion of that is to replace the entire kernel tree with
>
> #error "compiler or program might have a bug
> It makes sense to refuse to build a piece of the kernel if it break's
> a machine - anything else is a timebomb waiting to explode.
The logical conclusion of that is to replace the entire kernel tree with
#error "compiler or program might have a bug. Aborting"
The kernel is NOT some US home
My last comment on this...
It makes sense to refuse to build a piece of the kernel if it break's
a machine - anything else is a timebomb waiting to explode.
I feel politics are at play here...I don't really care who's bug it is -
all I know is using pre 2.96 fixes it and everyone needs to be a
26 matches
Mail list logo
