| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Compilers (was Re: 2.4.11 don't work yet.) |
| From: | nic <nic@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:30:05 +0100 |
| Envelope-to: | <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <3BC45B58.EEC0AA7E@xxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Quixotic Hackers |
| References: | <4.3.2.7.2.20011010132408.02d1f3f0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E15rIfX-0000JG-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3BC45B58.EEC0AA7E@xxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | nic@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wednesday 10 October 2001 15:29, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Compilers are still a touchy subject... we just found one compiler bug > last week w/ the RH 7.1 version of GCC, which caused filesystem > corruption if you use xfs_growfs. gcc 3.0.1 from Mandrake did not > exibit this problem... > > In short, "kgcc" is still the only compiler that we have a lot of > confidence in - others may work most of the time, but I still don't have > a "warm fuzzy" about any of them. OK - I tried gcc 3.0.0 and it did exactly the same. I'm suspecting my source tree is corrupt. Not what you want over a 'phone line. Thanks all, nic |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Oops on recovery with Linux-2.4.11-xfs on SPARC, Keith Owens |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Uhhuh.. 2.4.12, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Compilers (was Re: 2.4.11 don't work yet.), Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Compilers (was Re: 2.4.11 don't work yet.), Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |