xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: gcc 2.95.2

To: markh@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: gcc 2.95.2
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:39:50 -0500
Cc: CioccarelliA <alciocca@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0103141621400.2349-100000@vie-ac.office.ecetra.com> <3AAF9C95.C0D37650@compro.net>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Mark Hounschell wrote:

> CioccarelliA wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > this question has probably been done to death but is gcc 2.95.2 a reliable
> > compiler for the current (CVS) xfs kernel? I am running the latest 14/03
> > CVS kernel compiled with 2.95.2 and haven't had any huge problems. My
> > window manager crashed a few times but recompiling it with gcc 2.95.2
> > fixed that, also my vmware win2000 died a horrible death with disk
> > corruption problems but I can't figure out how that could be related to
> > xfs (more likey just to a kernel compiled with 2.95.2)?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam Cioccarelli
>
> 2.95.2 is the official latest stable compiler. Unfortunatly I beleive
> there
> are still problems compiling xfs stuff with it. Thats what's holding me
> back
> from using it. Until these issues are resolved this will continue to be
> as you
> say "Done to death". I had the same problems as you when I used the "XFS
> Recomended"
> complier with colors in KDE2. Small price for a usable xfs fs but who
> knows
> what else it could cause.

The last time I tried 2.95.2 it appeared to working.
I haven't run extensive tests so I can't say for sure not problems exist.
If somebody does have a specific example of XFS failing send it our way and
we'll look into fixing it.

As far as 2.96 goes ... I don't think anybody really recommends using that
version
for the kernel or for anything else important.

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html

>
>
> regards

--
Russell Cattelan
--
Digital Elves inc. -- Currently on loan to SGI
Linux XFS core developer.




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