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

Why isn't gcc-2.91.66 (egcs-1.1.2) packaged (for kernel 2.4 builds)

Package: wnpp
Severity: important

Cheers Ray,

Surely there's another, easier, way instead of chasing and digging in
slink dists after old egcs package versions, and elsewhere after
patches, and still being unsure if one can pull everything through.

We have the 'alternatives'. Cannot that be used to add one more
compiler to the family? Would anyone with better understanding of this
care to comment?

Why not listen to the kernel hackers recommendations man make use of
that blasted egcs compiler for kernel stability. Why would they bother
making recommendations like this if it didn't matter.

  Quoting linux/Documentation/Changes:

  The gcc version requirements may vary depending on the type of CPU
  in your computer. The next paragraph applies to users of x86 CPUs,
  but not necessarily to users of other CPUs. Users of other CPUs
  should obtain information about their gcc version requirements from
  another source.

  The recommended compiler for the kernel is egcs 1.1.2 (gcc 2.91.66),
  and it should be used when you need absolute stability. You may use
  gcc 2.95.2 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.

Is there a big effort involved?


On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 16:36:09 +0100, Petr Èech wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 01:30:53PM +0100 , Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> > > Is egcs-1.1.2 packaged and available somewhere?
> > probably in slink.
> The slink version doesn't compile on current systems. I've looked into it
> once; perhaps you'll find
> 	http://www.jdassen.cistron.nl/egcs_1.1.2-1.diff.gz
> useful.
> Ray

Murphy was an optimist.

Reply to: