Just some comments on this topic in general.
I actually use redhat's compiler when working on xfs, and I very rarely
see a problem, the growfs thing was the last one and the one prior to that
was several months back. This code example was submitted to redhat in a
bug report by a more knowledgable person than us. A bug has been
identified in the compiler, and it appears to be in all versions, but
other behavior in the compiler appears to bring it out differently in
various gcc versions.
So I would actually say that unless you are using every single byte
of xfs code then you are probably OK with the compiler you have. Only
if you start experiencing odd problems which are not being reported
by other people should you consider switching.
In the meantime, there is a compiler bugfix on its way, but I do not know
when it might appear.
Steve
> Sidik Isani wrote:
> > Doesn't RedHat OWN Cygnus?
>
> Yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the GCC maintainers and
> GNU Pro guys (i.e. Cygnus) agree with the acts of the distro
> assemblers and testers (i.e. RedHat Linux). ;-PPP
>
> This is not Microsoft where NT developers end up being "Chicago"'s
> (i.e. MS-DOS 7.x + Windows 4.x -- i.e. Windows 95) "bitch" without
> any say. ;-PPP
>
> OSS developers and teams speak their mind, _before_ things get out
> of hand.
>
> -- TheBS
>
> --
> Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx chat:thebs413
> Engineer AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org
> President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Web site defacements are as much of a national security risk as
> inner city kids spray painting. There is nothing of value, and
> nothing that can't be fixed with a little re-paint. You'd have
> to have the equivalent stupidity of someone parking an F-18 in
> downtown LA. Even then, the only damage would be a new scheme!
> The US government wants life imprisonment for such "terrorism."
|