| To: | Joseph Fannin <jhf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Uhhuh.. 2.4.12 |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:34:31 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.40.0110111704540.23708-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20011011045341.96C8B1F9C3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Joseph Fannin wrote: > The problems with 2.95.x compilers is another stumbling block -- though > some documents may say these compilers are unsupported for Linux, they are > "unofficially" supported for 2.[4|5], as is, to a lesser extent, 3.0.x. > Anything that won't build (and work) with at least 2.95.x is broken. That may be the current opinion, but the fact is that there are compiler bugs in those versions of gcc that miscompile some of our perfectly legitimate code. See my TAKE message from yesterday, for example. -Eric -- Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Compilers (was Re: 2.4.11 don't work yet.), nic |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Compilers (was Re: 2.4.11 don't work yet.), Steve Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Uhhuh.. 2.4.12, Joseph Fannin |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Uhhuh.. 2.4.12, Joseph Fannin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |