xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: gcc-2.96-nn status

To: "linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: gcc-2.96-nn status
From: kris buggenhout <buggenkr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:33:40 +0200
References: <20010918124051.A30647@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20010918191512.03352ba8@pop.xs4all.nl> <4.3.2.7.2.20010919010548.0335ae28@pop.xs4all.nl> <3BA83ECB.D022D19D@club-internet.fr>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
jfm2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Seth Mos a écrit :
> >
> > At 21:26 18-9-2001 +0200, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> > >Seth Mos a écrit :
> > >
> > > > At 13:02 18-9-2001 -0400, Arun Ramakrishnan wrote:
> > > > >Hi,
> > > > >     I heard that 2.96 is again a devel version of gcc which is sorta
> > > > > unstable.I
> > > >
> > > > It was a CVS snapshot.
> > > >
> > >
> > >It was a CVS snapshot some 18 months ago.  Eighteen months of bug hunting
> > >later you can tell nothing about its stability.  In fact because Gcc 2.96 
> > >was
> > >frozen
> > >over a year before gcc 3.0  and has been far more dceployed I trust it far 
> > >m
> > >ore than gcc 3.0+
> >
> > True, but I gather 3.0+ will pop up in a lot more distributions then just
> > redhat and mandrake.
> > 3.0 is a official release which means it is not distribution specific. The
> > reason that mandrake adopted is was more or less because a lot of mandrake
> > is still redhat based. (no flame intended)
> >
> 
> I don't care which one is official what I care is which one crashes o
> and which one miscompiles less often
> For now gcc 3.0 is unproven and at least gcc 3.0 (don't know about gcc
> 3.0.1)
> has some horrific bugs far worse than those gcc 2.96 had in september
> 2000.
> 
> Also RedHat and Mandrake have far more users than all the remaining
> distributions
> combined.  Both RedHat ad Mandrake are poised to ship gcc 3 but gcc 2.96
> will be
> the default compiler.
> 
> Mandrake is no longer a clone of RedHat.  Factors were gcc 2.96 superior
> C++
> respective to gcc 2.95, faster executables (benchmarked) and perhaps
> support of
> Itanium.

Funny, I have been using gcc 3+ for months for building kernels, xfs
whatever... and havent got any problems yet.
one system is running semi-production with 1TByte of storage attached to
it.(a 2 CPU 4Gig machine)
runnin an xfs kernel (mid august CVS) for 4 weeks built with gcc3 no
problems yet... although we tested the system thoroughly on hardware
failures. pulling power in the midst of a performance test ... etc.

and had no barfs till date... only 1 problem but there I found a
workaround ... increasing size of xfs fs that had been grown already,
unmounting and xfs_repairing, mounting and extending ... worked


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