[Top] [All Lists]

Re: gcc 2.91.66, 2.95.3, 2.95.4, growfs

To: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gonyou, Austin)
Subject: Re: gcc 2.91.66, 2.95.3, 2.95.4, growfs
From: Sidik Isani <isani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:06:26 -1000 (HST)
Cc: isani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ('Sidik Isani'), linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <85063BBE668FD411944400D0B744267A888696@AUSMAIL> from "Gonyou, Austin" at Oct 26, 2001 06:46:28 PM
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
<Gonyou, Austin wrote:>
|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.

  Ok, thanks, that's a good data point to have.  I'm not sure the
  issue is "compilation effort" though.  I've even been able to
  compile 2.4 kernels with gcc-, with minor mods.  And it
  compiles just great out of the box with 2.95.3 too... but there
  were allegedly obscure but scary bugs in the assembly generated
  by this compiler that took *months* of use to discover.

  A suggestion for the FAQ: If the "egcs-1.1.2.tar.gz" I mentioned
  in my last message is *the* gcc-2.91.66, that is a useful
  piece of information.  If the RedHat version has the same number
  but had last minute fixes... then the O in Open source stands
  for Obfuscated if you ask me.

Be seeing you,

- Sidik

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