> > 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.
Does it mean that nobody cares to fix errors in assembler code? Do we have
to keep special compiler for kernel only? It seems that gcc-2.95.x is the
official GNU C compiler, isn't it? May be I'm wrong (I doubt), but I do
think that it's a good thing to get the kernel buildable with the official
compiler... EGCS had not been the official GNU C compiler, so one can make
an excuse kinda "don't use something unofficial", but this is not a case
with gcc-2.95.x...
> I get enough reports of random oddity, went away using older compiler to
> be sure its a bad idea
Did you try to build a kernel with gcc-2.95.1? Have you seen that whole
bunch of assembler warnings during the build? May be those warnings can
explain (at least partially) why don't the resulting kernel behave?
===========================================================================
Sergey Kubushin aka the Tamer < > The impossible we do immediately.
e-mail: ksi@ksi-linux.com SK320-RIPE < > Miracles require 24-hour notice.
===========================================================================
-
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/