[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gcc 2.95.2 vs 2.91

"Phillip R. Jaenke" wrote:

> *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 or 2.8.x to date.

I have just joined this list so please excuse me if I go over old ground.  I
have compiled the kernel 2.2.5 without any problems using the egcs-1.1.2
"powerpc-linux-gcc -v" reports "gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2
This was the last official release of egcs before it transformed back to
gcc-2.95, 2.95.1 and then 2.95.2.  What has changed so dramatically since then

The real question as far as I can see is whether it is a gcc bug or is it gcc
just being more thorough in picking up bad (or potentially bad) code.  If it is
the latter, then it is well worth modifying the code to satisfy gcc.  There are
two good reasons for this.  1) The code should be less prone to errors.  2)
There will be further releases of gcc.  If you want to stay with egcs/gcc-2.91
for ever then there is no problem but I think most people will want the benefits
that future releases of gcc will offer.

Summary.  If it is a gcc problem then hassle the gcc developers to fix it or at
least report it as a bug.  If gcc is doing the right thing, then change the
kernel code to conform.

Brendan Simon.

Reply to: