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 de
[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 compile
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
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
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
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 c
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 in
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 PRO
> 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 recommende
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 u
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 i
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
Sub
12 matches
Mail list logo
