Tried this too, but i have the feeling the kernel compiled with this gcc
3.0 is somehow slower. context switch is slower
no benchs (no time to make them) to sustain my feeling, just a feeling...
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Eric Lammerts wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Is it me
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Is it mean now kernel 2.2 with prepatch is (or will be) gcc 3.0 ready ?
> > If not what must be fixed/chenged to be ready ?
>
> It wont build with gcc 3.0 yet. To start with gcc 3.0 will assume it can
> insert calls to 'memcpy'
I tried it, but didn't run
Philip Blundell wrote:
> I don't think -fno-builtin has any bearing on whether gcc will emit calls to
> memcpy;
Good point. The subject was about the compiler adding function calls to
code, and I started talking about the compiler removing them...
--
Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a po
Alan Cox wrote:
> > why not always -fno-builtin,
> > and then call __builtin_foo when we really want the compiler's version..
> That may well be the right thing to do. Of course we rely on the compiler
> providing some of them too
true, it wouldn't be a completely transparent switchover, but it
>> It wont build with gcc 3.0 yet. To start with gcc 3.0 will assume it can
>> insert calls to 'memcpy'
>
>IMHO omitting -fno-builtin when compiling the kernel was always a risky
>proposition... Since we provide our own copies of many of the builtins
>[which are used in the kernel] anyway... why
> IMHO omitting -fno-builtin when compiling the kernel was always a risky
> proposition... Since we provide our own copies of many of the builtins
> [which are used in the kernel] anyway... why not always -fno-builtin,
> and then call __builtin_foo when we really want the compiler's version..
Th
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> [..]
> > o Fix refclock build with newer gcc (Jari Ruusu)
>
> Is it mean now kernel 2.2 with prepatch is (or will be) gcc 3.0 ready ?
> If not what must be fixed/chenged to be ready ?
It wont build with gcc 3.0 yet. To start with gcc 3.0 w
Hi again,
On 19 Jun 2001, Jochen Striepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now it stops with
OK, this resolved to nothing (my mistake). Now it works fine. Until it
reaches
ld -m elf_i386 -T /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/vmlinux.lds -e stext
arch/i386/kernel/head.o arch/i386/kernel/init_task.o
Hi,
On 19 Jun 2001, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > sched.c:52: conflicting types for `xtime'
> > /usr/src/linux/include/linux/sched.h:509: previous declaration of `xtime'
>
> Stick a volatile in the declaration. Thats a real bug it found
Um...
I made it
extern volatile str
> Just to keep you informed... (I think there was a saying that there was
> interest in experiences with compiling the kernel with non-recommended
> gcc's ...)
> sched.c:52: conflicting types for `xtime'
> /usr/src/linux/include/linux/sched.h:509: previous declaration of `xtime'
Stick a volatil
Hi,
On 19 Jun 2001, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2.2.20pre4
Just to keep you informed... (I think there was a saying that there was
interest in experiences with compiling the kernel with non-recommended
gcc's ...)
I tried the newly released gcc-3.0 compiling 2.2.20pre4 (yes,
11 matches
Mail list logo
