xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Correct compiler for XFS?

To: Khyron <khyron@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Correct compiler for XFS?
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:03:46 +0100
Cc: <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0111290625080.72899-100000@four.malevolentmi nds.com>
References: <20011129165042.L18411@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 06:27 29-11-2001 +0000, Khyron wrote:
From http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#compilersissues

"So far there were some problems reported with kernels built
with gcc 2.95 which were solved by compiling it with
egcs 2.91.66. So for now please use version gcc 2.91.66
(aka egcs 1.1.2) to build your XFS kernel for production
machines."

Seems the FAQ is afflicted with bitrot and needs some care
and attention.

And futher down I mentions that 2.95.3 can be used. It's the next sentence.

Here is the full text!

Yes. So far there were some problems reported with kernels built with gcc 2.95 which were solved by compiling it with egcs 2.91.66. So for now please use version gcc 2.91.66 (aka egcs 1.1.2) to build your XFS kernel for production machines. If you are using a debian or SuSE based system this means that you may have to find and install this egcs version. Please note that the problems with gcc 2.95.2 seem to be restriced to the i386 platform - on the ppc it works just fine with 2.95.2 for instance. On the other hand the gcc 2.95.3 (20010125) from debian unstable seems to work.

It's says that 2.95.3 seems to work. I don't see what's wrong with this part.

I still don't trust RH's 2.96, so I was going with 2.95.3.

Which is discussed in the next paragraph.

Cheers

--
Seth
Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.


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