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.
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
