Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:06:26 -0400
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That is most likely what happened. I didn't check logs. Didn't care. It
> didn't work, fuggit, I needed the machine stable and was mighty pissed that I
> couldn't just rip 3.3 off the damned system to force the issue without
> resorting to a serious downgrade to woody packages just to do it.
If you need the machine stable, then why are you running testing or unstable?
gcc 3.3 isn't in stable/woody.
Plus, this sounds like a kernel bug not honoring your CC cmdline var.
Bitching to debian will not help you, and just annoys us.
> > 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.
>
> Might have worked but forcing the issue is better IMHO. Without 3.3
> present there is absolutely no chance of some process down the line sanitizing
> the environment and monkeying up the works.
Forcing the issue? What are you forcing? We can't fix this.
Besides, what stability issues are you having? Hardware? If so, test it
better before deploying, or if it has gone flaky after deployment, buy
replacement hardware.
Reply to: