On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jason Holland wrote:
> http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.3/1157.html
>
> and follow the thread around. The gotcha page says
I've seen that thread before. It does not relate to compiling kernel 2.4
with gcc 2.96 at all. You might also notice that Alan Cox defends Red
Hat's choice of compilers during that thread.
Linux 2.2 and linux 2.4 are different beasts. If Red Hat uses 2.96 to
compile kernel 2.4, then I _TRUST_ gcc 2.96 to work with kernel 2.4.
> Then i would think that the source to the 2.4 test kernel included with
> redhat would also be "modified" to work.
2.2.16 was modified to use kgcc as the C compiler. 2.4 was intended (as
shown in the changelog) to be built with 2.96.
> Either way, if you read the
> Documentation/Changes file in latest 2.4 test kernel, egcs 2.91.66 and gcc
> 2.95 are the recommended compilers.
That's most likely because there hasn't been a release "2.96" from the gcc
steering committee.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that you can build linux
2.2.16 with gcc 2.95. It follows, then, that if Red Hat had used 2.95 as
their compiler, they still would have included kgcc for linux 2.2.x, but
_only_ for 2.2.x, as 2.4.0 would build fine with the newer compiler.
> If you don't believe me, then search
> around the kernel archives for more information, or post a message and get
> some details. If you have been using gcc 2.96, then your luckly the
> resulting kernel worked.
I suppose it boils down to a matter of trust. Red Hat trusts that kernel
2.4.0 will build with 2.96. I trust Red Hat.
MSG
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
