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 drive
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
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.
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 htt
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 st
> 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 work
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 pur
[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
[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'
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 i
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
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
> 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 constra
> 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
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?
Rega
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 fa
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.
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/Cha
18 matches
Mail list logo
