Hi all,
I plan to build a linux box for kernel development (only). Which
compiler would you suggest me to use?
As of today I'm using gcc-2.95.3 on all my production machines. Is this
still the preferred compiler for kernel work, or should I change to
3.0.x?
Thanks in advance
Frank
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Gabor Kerenyi wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 April 2002 20:33, Frank Schaefer wrote:
> > I plan to build a linux box for kernel development (only). Which
> > compiler would you suggest me to use?
> > As of today I'm using gcc-2.95.3 on all my production machines. Is this
> > still the preferred compiler for kernel work, or should I change to
> > 3.0.x?
>
> I use 2.95.2 for the test machine and gcc-3.1 from cvs on the other. There's
> no problem.
> gcc-3.1 gives a bit more warning. (I use 3.1 at home also)
> but don't try to use gcc 3.2 because the kernel won't compile in some cases.
Is this common knowledge? Is 3.1 as stable as 2.95.[23]?for compiling the
kernel? Does it make any difference in performace?
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester
Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> Is this common knowledge? Is 3.1 as stable as 2.95.[23] for compiling the
> kernel? Does it make any difference in performace?
Not quite.
http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s8-2
Gcc 2.95.3 is the recommended compiler for kernel 2.4.10 and later.
On Tuesday 30 April 2002 20:33, Frank Schaefer wrote:
> I plan to build a linux box for kernel development (only). Which
> compiler would you suggest me to use?
> As of today I'm using gcc-2.95.3 on all my production machines. Is this
> still the preferred compiler for kernel work, or should I change to
> 3.0.x?
I use 2.95.2 for the test machine and gcc-3.1 from cvs on the other. There's
no problem.
gcc-3.1 gives a bit more warning. (I use 3.1 at home also)
but don't try to use gcc 3.2 because the kernel won't compile in some cases.
Gabor