Re: 2.6.12 upload
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:20:31PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:55:42 +0300, Horms wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote:
> [...]
> >> - i'm leaning towards using gcc-3.3, as i'm afraid of gcc-4.0
> >> miscompiling things. however, if any architectures require gcc-4.0,
> >> either let me know, or update svn directly.
> >
> > How are you planing to do that.
> > I need to do something about the fact that users go and
> > grab kernel-source-2.4.27 and it doesn't compile with the
> > default gcc any more. Here are three solutions I have thought.
> >
> > 1. Document this somewhere
> > 2. Change the makefile to default to gcc-3.3
> > 3. Change the makefile to print out a nice error if gcc version >=4.0
> >
> > In all cases it seems it would be good to recommend gcc-3.3.
> >
>
> Actually, enough people on IRC have said that gcc-4.0 works for that, that
> I'm not convinced gcc-3.3 is necessary. I'm on the fence, I could go
> either way.
I for one haven't been able to compile 2.4.27 (from sarge) with gcc-4.0,
it dies horribly, and as I understand there is no interest uptream in
making 2.4 friendly to gcc-4.0. Sure it might work for some
configurations, but I'm pretty sure its broken for enough that its a
problem, the 686 config in sarge for starters.
--
Horms
Reply to: