[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: building kernel 2.0.x under potato

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Herbert Xu wrote:

herber>John Lapeyre <lapeyre@physics.arizona.edu> wrote:
herber>>     Hmm. Well my two potato systems are slightly different. One just
herber>> compiled 2.0.36 with the patch. But the other one failed with the 
herber>> message 
herber>>   fixed or forbidden register 2 (cx) was spilled for class CREG,
herber>This means that you're not using gcc272.
    I used the default compiler, which is "2.95".  The patch is supposed
to allow old kernels to be compiled with new compilers. So this is what
I wanted.  I also compiled it on a slightly older potato system with
a version "egcs-2.91.66", and this has produced a kernel, which, so far,
seems stable.  (btw, both systems have binutils
   There is a note here about the problem with 2.95:
 However, it just gives an example, but does not enumerate all of the
violations in the linux source.

  This is what I get when I try to compile the patched 2.0.36 source with
gcc272. This is similar to what I get when I try to compile un-patched
source with gcc272:

homey 38 > make 'CC=gcc272' zImage gcc272 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2
-fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strength-reduce -pipe -m486 -malign-loops=2
-malign-jumps=2 -malign-functions=2 -DCPU=586 -c -o init/main.o
init/main.c herber>-- init/main.c:23: linux/head.h: No such file or
directoryherber>Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) In
file included from /usr/include/linux/sched.h:14,herber>Email:  Herbert Xu
~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
                 from init/main.c:20:herber>Home Page:
/usr/include/linux/timex.h:159: field `time' has incomplete type

  The bottom line, from my point of view, is that make 'CC=gcc272'
will not compile any kernel on potato, and that 2.95 will not 
compile even a patched (see http://www.suse.de/~florian/kernel+egcs.html) 
2.0.36 kernel.
  There is still the possibility that my kernel crash is a hardware
failure that is triggered under 2.2.x, but not under 2.0.36.  Still,
from a pratical point of view, I (or a user) should not be forced to
upgrade the kernel because I want to build one more module, which is
almost what happened. (I just happened to have a system with egcs-2.91.66

John Lapeyre <lapeyre@physics.arizona.edu>
Tucson,AZ     http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre

Reply to: