Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-07 Thread Michael Fratoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 07 November 2002 02:55 am, Thomas Ribbrock wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote: > > I didn't feel like arguing any more, when I knew whoever it was who > > accused me of spreading FUD was wrong. > > > > Well, I fou

Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-06 Thread Thomas Ribbrock
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote: > I didn't feel like arguing any more, when I knew whoever it was who accused > me of spreading FUD was wrong. > > Well, I found I needed to recompile, after having tweaked a few config > changes. Then I went to compiling the kernel, and gcc

Re: Kernel build on Red Hat 8.0 [was: Re: Back to gcc 2.96]

2002-11-05 Thread Edward Dekkers
Bewdy! Thanks Michael. I've filed it away for future reference. --- Edward Dekkers (Director) Triple D Computer Services P/L -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@;redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Re: Kernel build on Red Hat 8.0 [was: Re: Back to gcc 2.96]

2002-11-05 Thread Michael Fratoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 05 November 2002 11:51 pm, Edward Dekkers wrote: > > The build completed without error, though. Here's the steps I used: > > # rpm -Fvh kernel-source-2.4.18-17.8.0.i386.rpm > > # cd /usr/src/linux-2.4.18-17.8.0/ > > # make mrproper > > # cp

Re: Kernel build on Red Hat 8.0 [was: Re: Back to gcc 2.96]

2002-11-05 Thread Edward Dekkers
> The build completed without error, though. Here's the steps I used: > # rpm -Fvh kernel-source-2.4.18-17.8.0.i386.rpm > # cd /usr/src/linux-2.4.18-17.8.0/ > # make mrproper > # cp configs/kernel-2.4.18-athlon.config .config > # make oldconfig > # make dep > # make bzImage && make modules && echo

Kernel build on Red Hat 8.0 [was: Re: Back to gcc 2.96]

2002-11-05 Thread Michael Fratoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 05 November 2002 11:02 am, Andrew MacKenzie wrote: > Are you using RedHat 8.0? I've never succesfully compiled a kernel yet > under RH8 using either gcc 3.2 or 2.96. > > I usually have trouble with the scsi aicxxx stuff. I've just built a

RE: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-05 Thread Kevin Krieser
EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Back to gcc 2.96 On Tuesday 05 November 2002 02:01 am, you is done writ: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote: > > drop me an email offline. Otherwise, when I suggest to folks that they > > really *do* need to either upgrade or downgrade

Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-05 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:33AM -0600, mark wrote: > > That comment alone suggests that you are not a C programmer, nor have you No, I'm not, but I don't have trouble compiling kernels (or anything else) with 2.96, so maybe not being a programmer is not so much a liability. > Oh, and I doubt

Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-05 Thread Andrew MacKenzie
+++ mark [RedHat] [Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600]: > and started compiling. And compiling. And compiling. Never did get past IPV4. > > SEGVs. Floating point exceptions. Parse errors. Are you using RedHat 8.0? I've never succesfully compiled a kernel yet under RH8 using either gcc 3.2 or 2

Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-05 Thread Michael Fratoni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 05 November 2002 01:51 am, mark wrote: > I didn't feel like arguing any more, when I knew whoever it was who > accused me of spreading FUD was wrong. That'd be me, and you're still wrong, sorry. > Well, I found I needed to recompile, after

Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-05 Thread Michael Schwendt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 00:51:56 -0600, mark wrote: > I didn't feel like arguing any more, when I knew whoever it was who > accused me of spreading FUD was wrong. Several people. Feel free to add me after reading this message. ;p > Well, I found I needed

Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-05 Thread Emmanuel Seyman
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:33AM -0600, mark wrote: > > Oh, and I doubt very much that there are "tens of thousands of people using > 2.96 to build kernels every day". The overwhelming majority are using rpms, And what compiler do you think the kernel rpms were built with? Please check that

Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-05 Thread mark
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 02:01 am, you is done writ: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote: > > drop me an email offline. Otherwise, when I suggest to folks that they > > really *do* need to either upgrade or downgrade, > > ->SHUT UP<-. > > unless you think you can *prov

Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-04 Thread John Nichel
I really don't know who you're arguing with, as I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but I'm currently using gcc 2.96-112 with no problems. Not saying that you're right or wrong, because I haven't used it to try and compile a kernel (I usually do my kernels from RPM's), but I haven't ha

Re: Back to gcc 2.96

2002-11-04 Thread Hal Burgiss
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:51:56AM -0600, mark wrote: > drop me an email offline. Otherwise, when I suggest to folks that they really > *do* need to either upgrade or downgrade, > ->SHUT UP<-. > unless you think you can *prove* that I'm wrong, by giving > *evidence*, which is defined as d