Steve Lord wrote:
> Actually, the examples given on this page do not apply to xfs, what
> does appear to be the case with xfs is that it exercises the 64 bit
> handling of the compiler more than most things do. 90% of the code
> base is also the Irix code which works just fine with the SGI
> compilers on a 64 bit architecture.
>
> The challenging problem is going from a kernel that crashes due to
> code not being compiled as expected, to finding the line of code in
> the 122 thousand lines which make up XFS and it support code (comments
> not stripped in that number).
>
> Oh and add to that the fact that some build types seem to run fine and
> some do not, that suggests bad code generation to me.
I stand corrected.
> Unfortunately, getting to the bottom of this is a big task, and there
> are compilers which are:
>
> a) still the recommended kernel compiler
> b) do not exhibit problems with xfs.
a) is true in RHL 7.0 only, because kernel 2.2.x doesn't compile with
gcc 2.96-RH due to problems found in http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html .
Kernel 2.4.x which is used in RHL 7.1 does compile nicely with gcc
2.96-RH. Therefore the old gcc is no longer called kgcc but is found in
the package egcs-compat. But I don't know what happend if you do an
upgrade, maybe kgcc still remains.
Best regards,
Martin Stricker
--
Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/
Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/
|