On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:14:16PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > It seems that a test for the frame pointer gcc bug was incorrectly added
> > to the build process, rejecting all 2.96 compilers (which generate better
> > code than 3.2) instead of just the broken ones.
> [snip]
>
> AFAICT Linus did this intentionally:
>
> http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0303.1/1031.html
>
> "Yeah, it will get some fixed compilers too, but that's just not worth
> worrying about - people will just have to turn off CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
> and be happy."
>
> -Barry K. Nathan <barryn@pobox.com>
So the choice is to use the 3.x compiler which has issues as well as
generating slow code, or to not be able to generate a decent error report
if something doesn't work right, rip the half-assed check out, or just use
2.4 kernels.
The problem is that it gets ALL fixed compilers in the 2.96 family, only a
few are broken, and it seems safe to assume that people who are building
test kernels probably have upgraded their compiler.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 22:00:40 EST