I've been using gcc 3.1 for kernels, glibc, and anything else I compile.
so far so good without any compiler related issues AFAIK ATM. Nothing
but *blazing* speed and usually good optimizations.
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 11:26, Seth Mos wrote:
> At 10:58 26-6-2002 -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>
> >I note that the XFS patches suggest using egcs 2.91.66 to build
> >the kernel. However, some new distributions (like Slackware) don't
> >even ship with that compiler any more. While it's easy enough to
> get,
> >I believe the kernel is supposed to be stable on later releases now.
> >
> >What are your feelings on using other versions of gcc for XFS builds?
>
> 2.95.3 is used out there in various distributions and works for most
> people. I have not seen any take messages in a while that fixed bugs
> with
> respect to compilers.
>
> 2.91.66 is the most tested compiler and is used for any SGI
> releases/installers. it's not that it won't work with other compilers.
> That
> period is long gone.
>
> >What about GCC 3.1.latest?
>
> People are using it. No real problems AFAIK (or they are not speaking
> up).
> we have seen more reports on the various 2.96 compilers then the gcc 3
> branch. The latest errata gcc-2.96 from redhat (or from 7.3) does
> works as
> advertised.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Seth
> It might just be your lucky day, if you only knew.
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Coremetrics, Inc.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
|