Seth Mos wrote:
> At 09:02 AM 9/28/2000 -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:52:28 +0200,
> > > Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >I'll test at least the beta kernel and then try to compile the cvs
> > > >kernel.
> > > >(but as far as I know there are 2.4 kernel issues with gcc2.96 (which
> > is a
> > > >pre snapshot)
> > >
> > > gcc 2.95 onwards rewrote the ix86 code for function prologues. kdb
> > > backtrace cannot handle the newer prologue code, gdb has problems with
> > > it as well. gcc 2.7.2.3 and gcc 2.91 (egcs-1.1.2) are OK.
> >
> >I have not checked, but I think redhat ships two compilers, there is a
> >kgcc package in the 7.0 release for kernel compilation, not sure of the
> >version in it.
>
> I would have to check if it's available. Workstation is upgraded by now and
> running in it's previous state. (always tricky upgrading machines -
> breaking stuff) The standard apache seems broken with some rsa crypto clash
> (php-4.02)
>
> Is the compiler hardcoded in the xfs source? (just checked out cvs tree)
> I got the error that gcc-2.91-6 was not available ?!
Yes! It's in the top level make file.
Hopefully this will be a heads up to anybody trying the newer compilers
that there is a problem.
>
>
> gcc -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -o
> scripts/split-include scripts/split-include.c
> scripts/split-include include/linux/autoconf.h include/config
> gcc -V egcs-2.91.66 -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/include -Wall
> -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe
> -fno-strength-reduce -c -o init/main.o init/main.c
> gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `cpp0': No such file or directory
> gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such file or directory
> gcc: file path prefix `/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/'
> never used
> make: *** [init/main.o] Error 1
>
> ??
>
> That should definitely not happen. I did make mrproper before compiling.
> make mrproper && make menuconfig && make dep && make bzImage etc..
>
> >Other concerns would be that the binaries of user space which are
> >dynamically linked agains glibc will have issues with the newer glibc
> >in Redhat 7.0. In theory they would not but.....
>
> Not really found any (yet ;-)
> More to come
>
> --
> Seth
> "Have you gone mad?"
> "Well, yes, but that's beyond the scope of this email."
--
Russell Cattelan
cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx
|