I've been using gcc 3.0, 3.0.1, 3.0.2, and gcc-cvs versions at home and have
compiled kernels with no further effort than that.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sidik Isani [mailto:isani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 3:04 PM
> To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: gcc 2.91.66, 2.95.3, 2.95.4, growfs
>
>
> Hello -
>
> I'd like to upgrade to the proper kernel compiler, but things are
> still confusing. About 10 days ago . . .
>
> Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> |At 13:18 16-10-2001 +0200, Robert Sander wrote:
> |>Hi!
> |>
> |>I just found the FAQ stating that one should compile an XFS kernel
> |>with gcc 2.91.66. Even Debian potato has 2.95.2 onboard.
> |>Does anyone know a debian source for 2.91.66 that is installable
> |>on woody or potato?
> |
> |Use alien to convert the compat-egcs rpm fropm redhat and
> install that.
>
> Does this mean that the RedHat package is not the same as
> egcs.cygnus.com:/pub/egcs/releases/egcs-1.1.2/egcs-1.1.2.tar.gz ???
> That's the one I was about to try, but then I read this message.
>
> |People have reported success with that. The newer gcc from
> debian unstable
> |seems to do reasonable as well.
>
> What exactly is gcc-2.95.4? An unreleased CVS version? I'm just
> a little surprised that there is not a single stable version of
> gcc on ftp.gnu.org that can compile the Linux kernel. :-( I had
> been using 2.95.3, but eventually I discovered the grow_fs bug which
> you guys apparently tracked down to that register spill/reload bug
> in gcc-2.96.*. So... I gues that means gcc-2.95.3 has it as well?
>
> o Does anyone know if gcc-2.95.4 is really fixed?
> o Where does one get gcc-2.95.4?
> o If egcs-1.1.2.tar.gz is not the same as gcc-2.91.66, then could
> someone point me to a source tar-ball?
>
> Believe me, I want to use the "right" version, but it is not easy!
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> - Sidik
>
|