Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 11:24:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 11:24:14 -0500 Received: from mandrakesoft.mandrakesoft.com ([216.71.84.35]:58910 "EHLO mandrakesoft.mandrakesoft.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 11:23:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:23:42 -0600 (CST) From: Jeff Garzik To: Anton Altaparmakov cc: war , Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Which gcc version? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011123142135.00a98ec0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > At 14:11 23/11/01, war wrote: > >#1) The compiler from redhat (gcc-2.96) is not an official GNU release. > > And anyone should care because...? > > >#2) http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/docs/kernel-newsflash.html/ > > "the reccomend compiler is now gcc-2.95.3, rather than gcc-2.91.66" > > Several main kernel developers use gcc-2.96 for their kernel development > work and according to Alan Cox using gcc-2.96 for the kernel is fine (from > a certain version onwards, can't remember the minimum release number he > said but the one in RH 7.2 is fine in any case). Yes, 2.96 has a lot of bug fixes and is very well tested and stable at this point. I trust it more than 2.95.3, but not more than egcs-1.1.2 :) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/