xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Updates for later gcc versions?

To: scott1021@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Updates for later gcc versions?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:43:33 -0500
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105051802150.1974-100000@nic-41-c85-24.mw.mediaone.net>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Scott M. Hoffman" wrote:
> 
>   After trying the patch for linux-2.4.4, using gcc 2.95.3, I'm wondering
> if there are plans to support the more up to date compilers, as it seems
> that the linux-kernel group has the kernel working well with even the RH7
> and 7.1 gccs (2.96-64 and 2.96-81).

We do plan to get newer gcc's tested & working.  I'm not sure Red Hat's
kernel is the best measure of how well "2.96" works, there are well over
100 (200?) patches in their kernel, and probably patches to gcc as well
- some of that may have to do with making 2.96 compile the kernel.

There ARE fixes in the devel tree for 2.95.x, (the latest "official"
gcc) that are not yet in the 1.0 tree.

>   On a side note, while compiling, I noticed quite a bit of the following
> messages: xfs_log.h:60 _lsn_cmp defined but not used

Quoting Russell a week or so ago:

> Yes that is because the 2.95.3 compiler has a problem with
> one of the inline functions, as such an ifdef turns off the
> inline for that function. The side affect being the function is
> defined for each file that includes that header file.
> It's a hack to get around a bug in gcc 2.95.3.


-- 
Eric Sandeen      XFS for Linux     http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
sandeen@xxxxxxx   SGI, Inc.

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