Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:14:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:14:41 -0500 Received: from Cantor.suse.de ([194.112.123.193]:34832 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:14:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:44:36 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: {PATCH} isofs stuff Message-ID: <20001123164436.A17631@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 07:37:27AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 07:37:27AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I have seen that there were discussions on the right compiler to use. > > Is 2.95.2 wrong? Have other things to do tomorrow, so it will be > > 24 hours before I can look at this again. > > 2.95.2 should have been reasonably ok, but egcs-2.91.66 is probably > considered the most stable compiler right now. > > Note that gcc has always had problems with "long long" variables. Very few > people use them as they aren't standard, and the code generation can be > much trickier, so bugs are much more likely. This (along with performance > issues) was why I refused the original LFS patches - they put "long long" > code all over the place. gcc 2.95.2 seems to have more problems with long long the egcs 1.1, I have at least one test case where it miscompiles a variable long long shift. -Andi - 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/