[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS in RHL 7.1

To: "Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS in RHL 7.1
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:32:06 -0500
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0104190943500.17050-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3ADE26CB.6F1766ED@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20010419132153.A6837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 19:44:11 -0400,
> Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> > Not unless they specifically change the Makefile back to gcc.
> > Our installer has add compat-egcs when the kernel development option
> > is selected so recompiling the kernel with kgcc shouldn't be any more
> > or less painful.
> not everybody uses redhat, so not everybody has easy access to old versions
> of gcc/egcs. i understand that sgi does not want to support every possible
> distribution out there. but a little bit more of distribution-agnosticism
> would be nice.

Right we fully agree, I was mainly referring to users that install our RH
src rpm and recompile the kernel from there.

So far people have reported  gcc 2.95.[2 3 4] and RH 2.96 successfully
compiling and running XFS.
It's just that the SGI XFS team has not done a lot of testing using these
We hope to resolve some of these compiler issues once XFS 1.0 is out the door.

We are committed to XFS on linux and not just XFS on Red Hat. Unfortunately
given the amount
of work that is required to fully integrate into a distribution, we do not
plan on doing installer support
for other distribution at this time.
In fact the RH installer modifications is not an SGI supported product, we are
mainly using
it as promotional vehicle to get XFS in front of more users.

> [...]
> > Due to some not technical delays with the 1.0 release it looks like we
> > will have time to consider our options.
> supporting 2.96 would be great, and would make life for non-redhat users
> much easier.

RH has applied some 150+ patches to the 2.96 compiler; which appears to be
working with XFS.
The vanilla 2.96 compiler has been clearly stated by the gcc folks as being
non production
ready, and should not be used for anything critical.
Therefore it is doubtful we would spend much time trying to fix XFS due to gcc
2.96 issues.

> --
> Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr  | ignorami: n: The BOFH art of folding problem
> <mike+sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |           lusers into representational shapes.
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

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