Re: Quick Q: Kernel compiling gcc295/gcc272?
I think you should be fine with gcc 2.95.2 but maybe you'd be safer
with 2.91.66 if you can get it as easily. You should know, though,
that I'm not at all an expert in these areas. The only time I've
recompiled my kernel was linux-2.2.17pre20 using gcc 2.95.2 on my only
non-Debian box (a less up-to-date RH6.0 machine, soon to also be
Here's the KT reference I alluded to:
It seems pretty explicit:
"At one point someone asked what the recommended compiler was for all
the various kernel versions, and Peter Samuelson [*] listed:
2.91.66 aka egcs 1.1.2. It has been officially blessed for 2.4 and has
been given an informal thumbs-up by Alan for 2.2. (It does NOT work
for 2.0, if you still care about that.)
220.127.116.11 works for 2.2 (and 2.0) but NOT for 2.4.
2.95.2 seems to work with both 2.2 and 2.4 (no known bugs, AFAIK) and
many of us use it, but it is a little riskier than egcs.
Red Hat 2.96 or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel."
You can check the rest of the 65-odd messages on this at the
above-provided link. However, everything I've been referring to is
non-Debian specific. I'm fairly certain Debian has packages for
compiling kernels, so you probably want to make sure you're aware of
HTH and take care,
Quoting Jonathan Gift (email@example.com):
> Thanks for getting back to me.
> Most of the answers have been in the form of "it works for me" or "no
> problems here". I've learned that Debian doesn't make idle threat. So you
> think things have changed and I'm ok?
> > According to kernel traffic this week (kt.linuxcare.com), if my memory
> > serves, gcc272 will _not_ properly compile the newest kernels, even
> > though the documents explicitly states that gcc272 is in fact the most
> > compatible compiler. Further searching of the kernel mailing lists
> > could probably dig up the whole conversation.