Re: kernel compile.again.
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 02:45 -0700, C_Wakefield wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 October 2006 01:05, you wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 October 2006 09:08, C_Wakefield wrote:
> > > Greetings.
> > > Still trying to understand why I can't seem to run any kernels I compile.
> > > Been trying since 2.6.17 on my new amd64-X2 and since then the only
> > > kernel that'll boot is a 2.6.16-2-amd64-k8-smp.
> > > I've tried using the debian amd64 kernel conifig on most kernels as well,
> > > with no joy.
> > > Kind of at the end of the rope here with ideas. NOW I'm beginning to
> > > think it's the compiler, 4.1? I've noticed that 2.6.16-2 is compiled
> > > with 4.0.
> > >
> > > How do I specify gcc 4.0 instead of 4.1 to compile a kernel?
> > I would expect it to be part of the "alternatives" mechanism, but it seems
> > its not. there is a /etc/alternatives/cc file, but its a link to
> > /usr/bin/gcc.
> > /usr/bin/gcc is again a link, this time to /usr/bin/gcc-4.1 in my case. I
> > have successfully compiled sources that needed gcc-4.0 by changing the
> > links of /usr/bin/gcc and /usr/bin/g++ to point to the 4.0 version. I guess
> > you can try the same brute trick.
> > Dimitris
> Thanks for the idea. I just compiled 126.96.36.199 with .config from my only
> running debian kernel: 2.6.16-2-amd64-k8-smp with gcc-4.0 using the symlink
> in /etc/alternatives/gcc. Again, no joy.
> My next, is to use gcc-2.95, but not sure if it that's a good idea, given it's
> What is odd, also, is that debian linux-images: 2.6.18-1-amd64 and
> 2.6.17-2-amd64 won't boot my machine either!Thanks for the replies,
2.95 has no 64-bit support. If you want a 32-bit kernel, then this
probably isn't the right list.
What precisely is happening when you try & boot your system? Do you have
some some specific error or diagnostic information that could be used to
find what the issue is?