Re: 2.2.13 & gcc-2.95.1
Garst R. Reese (reese@isn.net)
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:40:51 -0300
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> >
> > > Up until 2.2.13pre5 I had no problems with gcc-2.95.1. Has a decision
> > > been reached to just definitely break 2.2 wrt gcc-2.95.1?
> >
> > You just need to apply a small patch (attached).
>
> Please dont build production kernels with gcc 2.95.x. For fun yes, work no.
>
> I get enough reports of random oddity, went away using older compiler to
> be sure its a bad idea
I certainly will not argue with your advice, but...
One of the few contributions I am able to make to the free software
community is to test their products. If nobody compiles kernels with
2.95.x, and it is buggy, then those bugs will remain in gcc-3.x. If the
kernel is written to take advantage of 2.7.x quirks then this will not
change, and we will be forever stuck in this same place. My own policy
has been to assume that there is an intimate relationship between gcc
2.95.x and binutils, so I keep up with both and the only problem I have
had has been when old code violated new coding rules. I do back up my
wife's files:)
Garst
P.S. Thanks for the patches bero.
-
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/