Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3637 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] How important is it to not user gcc2.95.2 for kernel 2.4?
Thanks Mads
I will take your advice to look at

> egcs-1.1.2 is mentioned because the documentation is out of date.

This is really really bad that the doc was able to tell that we needed specified requirements
for the 2.4.2 update - and then point us to versions of those requirements that may be in error.
I wonder though, how egcs-1.1.2 would handle compiling present kernels.
not to contradict you , but other parts of the doc were correct - the modutil -
util-linux - ppp - , and most else that I see were correct .

Quote from doc /usr/src/linux/documentation/changes
on gcc compilers 2.95 - series

Similarly, if you choose to use gcc-2.95
or derivatives, be sure not to use -fstrict-aliasing (which, depending on
your version of gcc 2.95, may necessitate using -fno-strict-aliasing).

I have been seeing this all the time in compiles '' -fstrict-aliasing ''
the doc says not to have this option .
I wonder why I'm seeing it in compiles when I didn't do , make -fstrict-aliasing .?
''your version of gcc 2.95, may necessitate using -fno-strict-aliasing).''
I wonder then also do I need to add this option to compile kernels -fno-strict-aliasing.?

This option makes the compiled, result in more compact code (smaller size) ? I believe.
that's a good thing that I would like to be able to use.

but that doc looks pretty up to date to me now that I go back and check.
except for the egcs part , but I bet that egcs will work to compile new kernels.
maybe those kernel guys know some things that the rest of us don't know.
like for instance that egcs 1.1.2 (gcc 2.91.66) may work great to compile new kernels.
Damn I'm iching to give it a try . egcs always ran so smooth .
I'll probably give a try to the gcc 2.95.3
first though.
bye for now
On Wed, 02 May 2001, Mads Martin Jørgensen wrote:
> * basslake <basslake@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [May 02. 2001 14:03]:
> > You should use gcc 2.95.3 -- look in
> > > IIRC the good Mr. Thomas provided update rpm's for us :-)
> >
> > Well That's Good , but is it any better than 2.95.2 ??
> > Is there any more info - or should we trust by blind faith, that it will
> > not cause problems that 2.95.2 may.
> Well, since it is a minor release, it is only bugfixes because 2.95.2
> was so buggy. Go look at, and you'll see.
> > What parts of compiling a kernel could there be some affect ?
> >
> > Why is ergs circa 1999 , the prefered choice in the /usr/src/linux/documentation/changes ?
> > egcs 1.1.2 (gcc 2.91.66) - <>
> > I can probably answer this myself - because it was a damn good compiler. But who would have known
> > that it could be used to compile the latest kernels .? especially with all the 'updating hype' going on
> > reminds me of -m$ I know don't say it .
> > -semi-rant-
> > Else I would not have updated to gcc2.95.2 -which is not as good as egcs 1.1.2 .
> >
> > By the time I find this out , I have already compiled kernels 4 times using 2.95.2
> > I have had quite dubious results. see on this list - the many, ''problems compiling . . .''
> > messages posted - march-april - .
> > Dubious results may or may not have been caused by the compiler though -
> > but I wish I knew more of what is at fault so I can get on with making my cottage cheese : \
> > So lets talk compilers once in a while here on the list .
> >
> > -end-semi-rant-
> egcs-1.1.2 is mentioned because the documentation is out of date.
> --
> Mads Martin Joergensen,
> "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and
> totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort."
> -- A. P. J.
> --
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
> For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
> Also check the FAQ at and the
> archives at

God does not play dice" -- Einstein
"Not only does God play dice, he sometimes throws
them where they can't be seen." -- Stephen Hawking

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups