Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:56:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:56:38 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:45061 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:56:22 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) Subject: Re: recommended gcc compiler version Date: 22 Dec 2000 11:25:14 -0800 Organization: Transmeta Corporation Message-ID: <9209qq$7pf$1@penguin.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: <0012212320430F.02217@comptechnews> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article , Alan Cox wrote: > >2.4.0test > egcs-1.1.2 > (gcc 2.95 miscompiles some of the long long uses) > Red Hat's 2.96 seems to generate valid kernels but don't expect > sympathy if you report a bug in one built that way Now, now, I'd love to se reports of expecially the new updated compiler. I've not actually seen a single report of problems for the kernel even with the old 2.96, it's just that I've seen too many user-space problems that I would be hesitant to use it for the kernel. Despite my dislike of releasing snaopshot compilers, I'd _much_ rather see Red Hat just dropping their "kgcc" thing, and in order to do that people do ned to test with the new compiler. I just want people to mention the fact, so that I can correlate any bug-reports with a compiler version. Just in case. It can be important (and not just because of compiler bugs, but due to real kernel bugs that just were hidden by pure luck with other compilers). And it helps a LOT if you have another compiler available to compare with. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/