Re: gcc versions

[Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:52 3-8-2001 -0700, Matt Ryan wrote:
> hi -
>
> I see this in the FAQ:
>
>         "If you are using gcc 3.0 and it gives problems or does not compile,
> drop a note on the list with the oops and ksymoops output. We will be
> working on getting XFS fully functional with gcc 3.0. "
>
>
> does that mean the XFS team is planning on transitioning to 3.0 as the
> 'official' compiler in the near future?  I ask because seeing something
> like this:

No, we need testing (and lot's of it) to make sure that gcc 3 compiles 
kernel and xfs in specific right. If that happens < half a year from now I 
would be surprised.
Don't get me wrong. XFS kernels work fine when compiled with gcc 3 but it 
has just not had enough testing to use it in production yet and a 
recommendation for others.

>         "egcs-1.1.2 aka kgcc wont build 2.4.7 it seems."
> (from http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0108.0/0309.html)
>
> makes me a little nervous.  I don't really know what to make of that
> since I've compiled 2.4.7 + XFS with kgcc (as have everybody else I'm
> sure), but I wonder how much longer it'll be viable.

It depends on the code used in the kernel. XFS has only been tested so far 
with egcs 1.1.2. That is because they started developing xfs on redhat 6.2, 
which ships with egcs 1.1.2

Surely there will be problems with stuff not compiling correctly but that 
other things start miscompiling when changing the compiler. It is just 
moving the problem around.



> Matt

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