Re: gcc 2.95.2 vs 2.91
David Welton wrote:
> So, I was talking with Cort regarding my ongoing RS6K troubles, and he
> mentioned that trying an older compiler might help.
> I did indeed have a better time of getting a v2.2.14-preX going with
> the 2.91 on my yellow dog partition.
> If we don't have a compiler that can generate good code for kernels,
> this is bad...
*sigh* this isn't just powerpc. this is x86 too. I can't get ANY kernels
to compile with gcc 2.95 or 2.91. Folks, I think at this point it's
SERIOUSLY advisable to just abandon gcc 2.9x as primary and change it to
optional. There's just too much stuff that will NOT compile with it. I
mean, hell, the damn thing is spitting out asm errors for 'mov' on x86!
I've had NO problems with 220.127.116.11 or 2.8.x to date.