Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:13:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:13:46 -0400 Received: from mustard.heime.net ([194.234.65.222]:27080 "EHLO mustard.heime.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:13:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:11:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk X-X-Sender: roy@mustard.heime.net To: Gabor Kerenyi cc: Frank Schaefer , Subject: Re: What compiler to use In-Reply-To: <200204302043.24504.wom@tateyama.hu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. - 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/