Re: gcc-2.95.3
On 16 Feb 2002, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Now, there are unfortunately very comlex interactions between the
> compiler version and specific constructs used in the Linux kernel that
> may cause miscompilations. However, without investigating the specific
> case, nobody can give a recommendation which compiler versions to
> avoid.
exactly. so the best way to avoid version-induced peculiarities is to
avoid using different versions at all.
the kernel docs recommend 2.95.3, so for the more 'official'
work i'll use 2.95.3.
linux-2.5.5-pre1/README:
COMPILING the kernel:
- Make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available. gcc 2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) may
also work but is not as safe, and *gcc 2.7.2.3 is no longer supported*.
Also remember to upgrade your binutils package (for as/ld/nm and company)
if necessary. For more information, refer to ./Documentation/Changes.
linux-2.5.5-pre1/DOcumentation/Changes:
The recommended compiler for the kernel is gcc 2.95.x (x >= 3), and it
should be used when you need absolute stability. You may use gcc 3.0.x
instead if you wish, although it may cause problems. Later versions of gcc
have not received much testing for Linux kernel compilation, and there are
almost certainly bugs (mainly, but not exclusively, in the kernel) that
will need to be fixed in order to use these compilers. In any case, using
pgcc instead of egcs or plain gcc is just asking for trouble.
well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the original
sources of gcc 2.95.2..
now, i don't really want to start some sort of war here. my point of view
was simply that *i* will use gcc 2.95.3 for kernel development, and i wanted
to find out if i could do this with a debian gcc package or if i had to
build my own local gcc.
so i use the standard gcc 2.95.3 from gcc.gnu.org, and everything is fine,
all questions answered. and i don't forbid anybody to use a different
version, because i am in a very generous mood today ;-)
--
peter koellner <peter@mezzo.net>
Reply to: