xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Contradiction of "recommended compiler" in kernel-ML and XFS FAQ?

To: "Ralf G. R. Bergs" <rabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Linux XFS Mailing List" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Contradiction of "recommended compiler" in kernel-ML and XFS FAQ?
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:43:39 +0100
In-reply-to: <E16V9UP-0003kg-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 11:58 28-1-2002 +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
Hi there,

I just read the following in the linux-kernel mailing list FAQ:

>What are the recommended compiler/binutils for building kernels?
>
>(REG) This depends on the kernel version. Until 26-OCT-2000, gcc 2.7.2.3 was
>the recommended compiler for all kernels. On this date, Linus announced that
>gcc 2.91.66 (aka egcs 1.1.2) is the recommended compiler for 2.4.x kernels up >to version 2.4.9. Gcc 2.95.3 is the recommended compiler for kernel 2.4.10 and
>later.

In the XFS FAQ it says "use egcs 1.1.2." But what if I would like to use recent 2.4.x kernels with XFS? I guess you don't want me to compile the XFS stuff with
egcs-1.1.2 and the rest of the kernel with gcc-2.95.3? ;-)

Use egcs 1.1.2 for production systems. This is the most tested compiler with XFS. This was because the early gcc-2.96 version was problematic. It's a lot better nowadays and XFS is a bit more friendly to other compilers without eating your filesystem. But egcs 1.1.2 is still the most tested and is what I still use for my production machines.

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>