xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: gcc-2.96-nn status

To: Alan Eldridge <alane@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, SGI XFS Dev List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: gcc-2.96-nn status
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:14:47 +0200
In-reply-to: <20010918124051.A30647@wwweasel.geeksrus.net>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 12:40 18-9-2001 -0400, Alan Eldridge wrote:
I'm trying to configure my build system to make RPMS for one of our
comrades-in-XFS, and I've hit a big stumbling block.

RedHat's RPMS now build with gcc-2.96-74 or higher. Kgcc is probably going
to go away (I can find out I think). But you can't build an athlon kernel
with kgcc.

I can, altough it does not have as many optimizations. So I only think that the runtime speed would be affected. The linux kernel already knows what a Athlon processor is and what to do with it. I think this makes a larger difference then the compiler.


The IA64 folks are using 3.0.1+ which is needed because it is the only one that can generate IA64 assembler.

What's the current status/words-of-wisdom regarding gcc-2.96-xx? Or gcc-3.x,
for that matter?

2.96-85 seems relatively ok but sometimes it does funny things. So I am afraid that for generating production code we need kgcc and in the future we better start testing on 3.0+ which I have seen very little reports about. I know steve is compiling kernels with gcc-3.0 but I don't know how much testiong he has done with it. There are also a number of problems in the linux kernel itself that don't like anything above 2.95.4 (I have encounterd ISDN).


Sorry, not very helpful :-)

Cheers



--
Alan Eldridge
from std_disclaimer import *

-- Seth Every program has two purposes one for which it was written and another for which it wasn't I use the last kind.


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