xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Problems with 2.4.19-pre9

To: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Problems with 2.4.19-pre9
From: florin@xxxxxxxxx (Florin Iucha)
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:22:00 -0500
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1022846590.1146.21.camel@snafu>
References: <20020531115832.GA1401@iucha.net> <1022846590.1146.21.camel@snafu>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 07:03:09AM -0500, Stephen Lord wrote:
> > The compiler is
> >    Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/specs
> >    gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)
> 
> This is exactly the same compiler as appears to be the cause of
> the other problem. I wish we had the window narrowed down to less
> than 5 weeks, a LOT of things have changed in XFS in that interval.

I know that
   #===== NOTE =====
   #  egcs-2.91.66 is the recommended compiler version for building XFS.
   #  Most of the XFS developers are using that particular version for
and I also know that a lot of people compile XFS with other versions of
the compiler. I do compile it with gcc-2.95.x for almost a year now.

Would it be a good idea to have a poll to get a feel of what the users
out here compile XFS with, and try to steer the main developers/testers
onto that direction? Or decide that gcc-3.1 is the "wave" of the future
and try to make it usable?

florin

I know your first reaction will be "these are the resources we have"
and "contribute something before asking for something" but I am using 
XFS since last summer and reported the occasional glitches I encountered 
(not many, THANK YOU!). Also my load it fairly light - browsing, mail...
so it is not representative enough.

-- 

"NT is to UNIX what a dougnut is to a particle accelerator."

41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6  03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4

Attachment: pgpDnSMbTjdZb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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