2000-10-27 20:41:29

by Jeff Garzik

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

Pavel Machek wrote:
> Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
> reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).

What fails, when you use egcs-1.1.2 to build 2.0.x or early 2.2.x?

Maybe they need -fno-strict-aliasing... is that what you are referring
to?

Regards,

Jeff



--
Jeff Garzik | "Mind if I drive?" -Sam
Building 1024 | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at
the
MandrakeSoft | dash and screaming like a
cheerleader."
| -Max


2000-10-27 21:12:54

by Alan Cox

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
> > reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).
>
> What fails, when you use egcs-1.1.2 to build 2.0.x or early 2.2.x?

egcs miscompiles inlined strstr. It gets combined with bad asm constraints
to mean that 2.0 and earlier 2.2 will crash when fed the right (wrong ?)
sequence of FPU ops to software emulate