Massive problems compiling a kernel
I ve a fresh Suse 8.2 installation. The problem. It s not possible to build a kernel. I get tons of errors trying to compile an original 2.4.20er or a Suse-kernel. This happens on several different machines. It must be a genetral problem because using elder systems works without any problems. Any hints? Ralf Prengel
Afternoon, On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 13:24, Prengel, Ralf wrote:
I ve a fresh Suse 8.2 installation.
Same here.
The problem. It s not possible to build a kernel. I get tons of errors trying to compile an original 2.4.20er or a Suse-kernel.
What type of errors?
This happens on several different machines. It must be a genetral problem because using elder systems works without any problems.
I can build both the 2.4.20-SuSE kernel, the 2.4.21-rc1 kernel and 2.5.69 kernel on a SLPro 8.2 install. I do not know why you are seeing the problems you are seeing. Can you post more descriptive details about the compile errors you are getting?
Any hints?
Not yet. :)
--
Anders Karlsson
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2003 14:54 schrieb Anders Karlsson:
I can build both the 2.4.20-SuSE kernel, the 2.4.21-rc1 kernel and 2.5.69 kernel on a SLPro 8.2 install. I do not know why you are seeing the problems you are seeing. Can you post more descriptive details about the compe errors you are getting?
Any hints?
Not yet. :)
After downgradingen gcc to version 2.95 compilling was possible. -- Ralf Prengel Dortmund und nebenbei bemerkt 42 fuer alle die sich fragen was das alles soll
On Wednesday 07 May 2003 10:39 am, Ralf Prengel wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2003 14:54 schrieb Anders Karlsson:
I can build both the 2.4.20-SuSE kernel, the 2.4.21-rc1 kernel and 2.5.69 kernel on a SLPro 8.2 install. I do not know why you are seeing the problems you are seeing. Can you post more descriptive details about the compe errors you are getting?
Any hints?
Not yet. :)
After downgradingen gcc to version 2.95 compilling was possible.
This was all discussed on the list in the last couple of days. The SuSE kernel has been patched to fix some 'string' problems that have not been addressed in the kernel. The kernel developers have yet to move to GCC 3.3 and 2.4.20 will not compile without fixing the 'problems'.
-- Ralf Prengel Dortmund und nebenbei bemerkt 42 fuer alle die sich fragen was das alles soll
-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 05/07/03 11:01 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "'LOVE' is nothing but 'SEX' mispelled."
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 16:03, Bruce Marshall wrote: [re: not able to compile vanilla 2.4.20 on SLPro 8.2]
This was all discussed on the list in the last couple of days. The SuSE kernel has been patched to fix some 'string' problems that have not been addressed in the kernel. The kernel developers have yet to move to GCC 3.3 and 2.4.20 will not compile without fixing the 'problems'.
It looks as if this problem then has been addressed in kernel
2.4.21-rc1, possible earlier incarnations of 2.4.21 as well, but I have
not tried them. 2.5.6[89] compiles as well using GCC 3.3, although I
have not had any luck running either of them.
2.4.21-rc1 works a treat though and it was required for me to get my
machine working.
Regards,
--
Anders Karlsson
Someone
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2003 14:54 schrieb Anders Karlsson:
I can build both the 2.4.20-SuSE kernel, the 2.4.21-rc1 kernel and 2.5.69 kernel on a SLPro 8.2 install. I do not know why you are seeing the problems you are seeing. Can you post more descriptive details about the compe errors you are getting?
Any hints?
Not yet. :)
After downgradingen gcc to version 2.95 compilling was possible.
Is there an easy way to get a gcc 2.95 that does not install over my current gcc 3.3 on suse ? Im going to rebuild my kernel on a suse 82 system to see if it resolves my nvidia issues (see other emails on this list ;) ) Ideally an rpm that installs under /opt/gcc295 or somesuch Of course, I can download the gcc295 source and build from source to install under /opt/gcc295 , but I prefer to have a rpm that is known good Kind regards, -- Gerhard den Hollander Phone :+31-10.280.1515 Global IT Support manager Direct:+31-10.280.1539 Jason Geosystems BV Fax :+31-10.280.1511 (When calling please note: we are in GMT+1) gdenhollander@jasongeo.com POBox 1573 visit us at http://www.jasongeo.com 3000 BN Rotterdam JASON.......#1 in Reservoir Characterization The Netherlands This e-mail and any attachment is/are intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, we request that you do not disseminate, forward, distribute or copy this e-mail message. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and destroy the original message.
On Wednesday 07 May 2003 15:33 pm, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
Someone
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2003 14:54 schrieb Anders Karlsson:
I can build both the 2.4.20-SuSE kernel, the 2.4.21-rc1 kernel and 2.5.69 kernel on a SLPro 8.2 install. I do not know why you are seeing the problems you are seeing. Can you post more descriptive details about the compe errors you are getting?
Any hints?
Not yet. :)
After downgradingen gcc to version 2.95 compilling was possible.
Is there an easy way to get a gcc 2.95 that does not install over my current gcc 3.3 on suse ?
Im going to rebuild my kernel on a suse 82 system to see if it resolves my nvidia issues (see other emails on this list ;) )
Wouldn't just rebuilding the current SuSE kernel (which will compile with 3.3) work? Unless you think SuSE screwed up the nvidia stuff....
Ideally an rpm that installs under /opt/gcc295 or somesuch Of course, I can download the gcc295 source and build from source to install under /opt/gcc295 , but I prefer to have a rpm that is known good
Kind regards, -- Gerhard den Hollander Phone :+31-10.280.1515 Global IT Support manager Direct:+31-10.280.1539 Jason Geosystems BV Fax :+31-10.280.1511 (When calling please note: we are in GMT+1) gdenhollander@jasongeo.com POBox 1573 visit us at http://www.jasongeo.com 3000 BN Rotterdam JASON.......#1 in Reservoir Characterization The Netherlands
This e-mail and any attachment is/are intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, we request that you do not disseminate, forward, distribute or copy this e-mail message. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and destroy the original message.
-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 05/07/03 17:24 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ " The Pilgrims refused to eat lobsters because they believed they were really big insects. Source: "Uncle John's Bathroom Reader"
* Bruce Marshall
On Wednesday 07 May 2003 15:33 pm, Gerhard den Hollander wrote:
Someone
Am Mittwoch, 7. Mai 2003 14:54 schrieb Anders Karlsson:
I can build both the 2.4.20-SuSE kernel, the 2.4.21-rc1 kernel and 2.5.69 kernel on a SLPro 8.2 install. I do not know why you are seeing the problems you are seeing. Can you post more descriptive details about the compe errors you are getting?
Any hints?
Not yet. :)
After downgradingen gcc to version 2.95 compilling was possible.
Is there an easy way to get a gcc 2.95 that does not install over my current gcc 3.3 on suse ?
Im going to rebuild my kernel on a suse 82 system to see if it resolves my nvidia issues (see other emails on this list ;) )
Wouldn't just rebuilding the current SuSE kernel (which will compile with 3.3) work? Unless you think SuSE screwed up the nvidia stuff....
The NVidia drivers come in 2 parts. A precompiled .o file, and some glue code. The .o has been compiled with gcc295 (I assume), and all the rest is compiled with gcc33. As Im trying to pinpoint the problem (it only occurs on suse82) to see wether it's XF86-4.3, gcc33, the 2.4.20-suse kernel or ..... mixing .o's from different compilers in the same kernel (or modules) can eb very bad, so that is my first area of interest l;) Kind regards, -- Gerhard den Hollander Phone :+31-10.280.1515 Global IT Support manager Direct:+31-10.280.1539 Jason Geosystems BV Fax :+31-10.280.1511 (When calling please note: we are in GMT+1) gdenhollander@jasongeo.com POBox 1573 visit us at http://www.jasongeo.com 3000 BN Rotterdam JASON.......#1 in Reservoir Characterization The Netherlands This e-mail and any attachment is/are intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, we request that you do not disseminate, forward, distribute or copy this e-mail message. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and destroy the original message.
Gerhard den Hollander
Is there an easy way to get a gcc 2.95 that does not install over my current gcc 3.3 on suse ?
Yes. Download the source tarball for 2.95 and extract it. Then when you configure it, set either or both of "--program-prefix=xxx" or "--program-suffix-yyy". This will create the programs with a different name, and you then change the kernel Makefile to use the altered name for the compiler. So for example if you set "--program-suffix=-2.95" then you would change the lines (at the start of the kernel Makefile) HOSTCC=gcc-2.95 CC=gcc-2.95 then continue building the kernel.
participants (6)
-
Anders Karlsson -
Bruce Marshall -
Gerhard den Hollander -
Graham Murray -
Prengel, Ralf -
Ralf Prengel