Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:14:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:37:32 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
> > What you meant to do was to run "make CC=gcc-2.95" instead of make. There
> > is no need to futz around with the default gcc version; just ask for what
> > you want.
>
> Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from
> running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. It
> would die repeatedly on the same line in ide-cd.h. I did tell make to use
> gcc-2.95 and it failed on the exact same line. Removing gcc, which is 3.3,
> gcc-2.95 which depended on 3.3 (this is NOT 2.95 in my eyes) and then
> installing the packages from woody did allow me to recompile that version of
> the kernel.
>
> I fail to see how 2.95 installing 3.3 somehow equates to 2.95.
I fail to see how 2.95 installing both 3.3 and 2.95 somehow equates to
a problem! It brings in 3.3 for hysterical raisins, but that doesn't
stop gcc-2.95 from being perfectly usable.
I build kernels with alternate compilers all the time. Did you check
the log to see which compiler the kernel actually built with?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: