Re: Should this be filed as grave? Gcc-2.95
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 08:43:36AM -0700, 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.
Downgrading sounds like overkill in this situation. I only had to edit
/usr/src/linux/Makefile to change HOSTCC to gcc-2.95 and export
CC=gcc-2.95 in the environment, and it worked fine for me. This is on
2.4.21, of course, but I suspect the same holds for 2.4.20.
> > 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.
[snip]
ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-2.95 /usr/bin/gcc
<build kernel>
ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-3.3 /usr/bin/gcc
Problem fixed.
T
--
Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that
leads to himself. -- Herman Hesse
Reply to: