In article <AD8TrXv09C@khim.sch57.msk.ru>,
Khimenko Victor <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Thats totally irrelevant, gcc-2.95.2 whether it's considered a release
>> or not is unable to compile the 2.2.x kernels - well known issue that
>> will not get fixed. One should not do that it's as simple as that.
>It's other way around. If RELEASED gcc miscompiles kernel it's kernel problem
Not always. There have been gcc releases that are buggy too. Sometimes
the kernel ends up having work-arounds. Sometimes the end result is to
tell people not to use them.
>(BTW I've using gcc 2.95 compiled 2.2.x kernels for last year without problems).
>If UNSTABLE gcc miscompiles kernel then it's not even kernel issue ...
Not necessarily true either. Quite often new compilers just do
optimizations that were always legal but just didn't trigger, and nobody
noticed some bug in the kernel. So even a new snapshot of gcc may be
fine, and miscompile the kernel even so. I'll try to fix the kernel
asap, of course (sometimes that fix is to simply disable an optimization
that isn't appropriate for the kernel - this was the case with the
strict alias analysis code, for example).
It _sounds_ like gcc-2.96 is just not quite stable. Somebody claimed
that the new 2.96-based one in 7.0beta was ok again. I certainly know of
people using the latest CVS snapshots to compile the kernel, and it can
often be a case of "it works for them" and then end up that some other
configuration of Linux might show problems.
It's not a clear-cut problem. There have certainly been bugs in both gcc
and the kernel, in all combinations of "stable vs experimental".
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 - 21:00:07 EST