Re: Is the kernel compiler gcc by definition?

Anthony Barbachan (barbacha@Hinako.AMBusiness.com)
Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:53:55 -0400

I tried using the CC="gcc-2.7.2.3" option to compile the kernel on a machine
using gcc 2.8.1 by default. Unfortunately while most of kernel did compile
with 2.7.2.3 some parts did not causing a well known bug with gcc 2.8.1/egcs
compiled kernels to show up. I even tried using the PATH to point to the
earlier version of the compiler but that didn't work. Somewhere in the
Makefiles it actively looks for /usr/bin/gcc. The compilation actually
fails if this file isn't there.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@kg1.ping.de>
To: RHS Linux User <humbubba@raptor.cqi.com>; linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
<linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: Is the kernel compiler gcc by definition?

>On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 05:48:23PM -0400, RHS Linux User wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is there a policy on what C constructs may be in the kernel?
>> Or is gcc the de-facto definition of what kind of code is allowed?
>> Or something else?
>
>Try
>make CC="my_cc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/include"
>and see if another compiler complains, if you have one.
>
>2.0 kernels are known to have problems even with egcs, so other optimizing
>compilers will fail on 2.0.x, but with 2.1.x there might be a possibility
to
>succeed.
>
>--
>Kurt Garloff, Dortmund
><K.Garloff@ping.de>
>PGP key on http://student.physik.uni-dortmund.de/homepages/garloff
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/