Re: OFFTOPIC: binary modules, bad idea!

Albert D. Cahalan (
Fri, 19 Dec 1997 22:43:34 -0500 (EST)

>> If the kernel needs a special gcc for module versions,
>> then that is simply what it needs. Standard gcc could
>> still compile a kernel without modules.
> Anything I develop is going to use plain stock compilers,
> linkers, and so on.

What is a plain stock compiler anyway? Certainly not gcc.
Linux already requires a specific version of a specific
compiler with a specific object file format. You simply
can't write kernel code with plain stock compilers.

There are 3 gcc variants that can support the kernel now.
If the FSF won't add some feature Linux needs, tough.
They _will_ add it if Linux stops using their gcc, just like
they made glibc work. They might not cooperate until they
start to lose control a bit. Oh well. It is sick to let
them hold Linux back.

Anyway, this is only for versioned modules.