<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-220.127.116.11, 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,