On Tue, 01 Aug 2000, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Lee> I have been compiling 2.2 with gcc 2.95 for nearly a year now
> Lee> without any kernel-related problems. Shame on me.
> And your point is?
> gcc 2.9x is known to have problems with 2.2 - if you see no problems,
> good for you but don't come running if something breaks.
Note egcs is also gcc 2.9x. What problems is 2.95.2 supposed to have
with 2.2? And people will come running if something breaks to have
somebody look if it's the kernel (see Alan's mail) or the compiler.
> It's not supported and it has been stated over and over again.
Who decides if it's supported? Anyone who is unable of getting binutils
and gcc release versions compiled? The who is to lazy to upgrade?
Sorry, I still fail to see any evidence. Quote, forward mails, show
broken code (which can then be fixed), give any proof that NOT using
2.95.2 is justified in any way. FUD should be kept off this list.
Now, what's your point? What are you after?
-- Matthias Andree
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:06 EST