xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: strange files, XFS bug?

To: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: strange files, XFS bug?
From: Dana Soward <dragon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 13:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3AF1A4EF.EE82780F@thebarn.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Just an FYI...I'm using Debian Woody with the CVS XFS kernel...the woody
gcc version is 2.95.4, and it "works". I have not done extensive testing
though...

Dana


On Thu, 3 May 2001, Russell Cattelan wrote:

> I'm sure this compiler issue won't go away soon.
> 
> But just as an overview of what is working and what isn't
> 
> XFS Release 1.0:
> 
>      gcc 2.91.66  well tested know to work, use this for stability
> 
>     gcc 2.95.2/3/4 reported to work, not extensively tested, use as own risk
> 
>     gcc 2.96     does not work, gives compilation errors.
> 
>     gcc 2.95RH7.1    ditto.
> 
>     gcc 2.96Mandrake Not attempted yet.
> 
> XFS current:
>     gcc 2.91.66    same as R 1.0
> 
>     gcc 2.95.2/3/4    same as R 1.0
> 
>     gcc 2.96        does not work, compilation errors
> 
>     gcc 2.96RH7.1    compiles, boots, and initial tests show it to be working
> 
>     gcc 2.96Mandrake    compiles, boots, and initial tests show it to be 
> working
> 
> As always there is a big difference between what is "supported" and what 
> "works".
> 
> We are saying R 1.0 is supported (in the loose sense of Open Source supported)
> 
> by compiling with gcc 2.91.66, everything else is "use at your own risk" at 
> this
> 
> point.
> 
> --
> Russell Cattelan
> --
> Digital Elves inc. -- Currently on loan to SGI
> Linux XFS core developer.
> 
> 
> 


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