These files state different C compiler requirements. Which one is
correct?
--
Florian Weimer [email protected]
University of Stuttgart http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/
RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
> These files state different C compiler requirements. Which one is
> correct?
gcc 2.95.[3,4] is probably the compiler of choice
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > These files state different C compiler requirements. Which one is
> > correct?
>
> gcc 2.95.[3,4] is probably the compiler of choice
My first attempt at this question didn't seem to make it in. On RH 7.1,
which has kgcc (2.91.66) and gcc 2.96, will it be necessary to install a
third compiler for stable 2.4.10+ compiles? Can kgcc still work for
this? I'm one of the people running XFS filesystem, and the XFS code
works well with kgcc, but it makes me nervous to think about using
anything else with XFS kernels. I would be greatly relieved if 2.91.66
remains useable throughout the 2.4.x series.
D. Stimits, [email protected]
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
D. Stimits wrote:
> My first attempt at this question didn't seem to make it in.
> On RH 7.1, which has kgcc (2.91.66) and gcc 2.96, will it be
> necessary to install a third compiler for stable 2.4.10+
> compiles?
AFAIK not for 2.4.
> Can kgcc still work for this?
If kgcc = egcs 1.1.2, I suppose so. I compiled 2.4.10 and all
earlier 2.4 with it.
Anyway, I compiled 2.95.4 right now and 2.4.11 will use it.
Time to remove egcs. Maybe it's the recommended compiler for
2.2 (?), but I don't intend to downgrade.
BTW, these files don't say that 2.95.4 is from CVS and not a
final release.
If you have the 2.95.3 sources, then
cvs rdiff -u -r gcc-2_95_3 -r gcc-2_95-branch gcc > gcc-2.95.4.patch
is your friend.
--
0@pervalidus.{net, {dyndns.}org} Tel: 55-21-2717-2399 (Niter?i-RJ BR)