xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: compile errors

To: suzukis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: compile errors
From: Jim Mostek <mostek@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:31:44 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: ealonso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20000427165847.13187.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "suzukis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" at Apr 28, 2000 01:58:47 AM
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
You hit the nail on the head.
We are focusing on getting XFS working now and will deal with
compatability issues later.

It would be great if you could provide some patches with fixes
to work with the the gcc version you have. We would integrate these
after some study.

Thanks,

Jim

>
>>Well, some may say that it is old, but gcc 2.7.2.3 IS
>>the official compiler of the linux Kernel.
>
>Yes, the documentation in the official Linux kernel source
>(Documentation/Changes) tells as "at least gcc-2.7.2.3".
>But I don't think the documentation does not push
>gcc-2.7.2.3 than later. How do you think?
>
>>I (IMHO) think it is rather stupid if XFS wouldn't compile
>>with the official linux kernel compiler.
>
>Of course, I agree enabling linux-xfs to be compiled
>with gcc-2.7.2.3 is expected - but I don't think yet
>it's not time for the linux-xfs core developpers to
>check the back compatibilities. Today linux-xfs is
>in bleeding-edge status, Possibly still there might
>be bugs due to the implementation itself (SORRY!),
>realized in any versions of gcc. For the core developpers
>of SGI, now it's time to fix such bugs.
>
>So, please don't ask the gcc-version-independency yet.
>If you wish NOW - you (and me :-)) should do it.
>But, keeping (at least) 1 environment similar to the
>core developpers is not bad to find a bug, I think.
>Don't you think so?
>
>suzuki
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>