Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:54:38 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
> > Don't compile your kernel with gcc 3.3. I don't know whether the bugs lie
> > in the kernel or in gcc (or both), but this combination does not work
> > correctly.
>
> Yeah. That was the whole reason I was trying to get a copy of 2.4.20
> compiled with gcc 2.95. I didn't know if it was the compiler or the newer
> version of the kernel that had the problem. I just knew that my problems
> started with the newer version. If 2.4.20 is stable for 2 weeks I'll
> move it to my "stable" boot option, compile 2.4.21 w/gcc 2.95 and install it
> as the current and give it a whirl.
[snip]
Did you check your compile logs to see if it actually compiled with
gcc-2.95 or with just gcc (==3.3) ? It happened to me several times that
when building 2.4.21, it would use gcc-2.95 for the initial configuration
and cleanup targets (since I specified CC=gcc-2.95), but revert to gcc for
the actual build.
I had to hand-edit kernel makefiles to stop it from using gcc by default
and use gcc-2.95 instead. Or perhaps try setting CC=gcc-2.95 in your
environment before running the build.
T
--
We are in class, we are supposed to be learning, we have a teacher... Is it
too much that I expect him to teach me??? -- RL
Reply to: