Re: I thought 2.2.x should detect RAM >64
Ethan Benson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 11/1/2000 Phil Brutsche wrote:
> >Keyword mostly.
> >It still wouldn't hurt to check it with egcs 1.1.2 or gcc 184.108.40.206. You
> >never know, this might be a part that's not 2.95.x safe.
> yes obviously the way to test for a 2.95 bug is to compile with older
> compilers and see if the problem persists, but the point is
> developers are now saying you can use 2.95 (and SHOULD so that
> remaining problems can be found and fixed). if nobody uses 2.95
> then the problems that remain will not get fixed.
I recompiled the kernel and all the modules with gcc-220.127.116.11. The
problem persists. Any further ideas?
Arcady Genkin http://www.thpoon.com
"'What good is my pity? Is not the pity the cross upon which he who
loves man is nailed?..'" (Zarathustra - F. Nietzsche)