On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Frank Jacobberger wrote:
> I was just trying to make a new 2.4.0 test13-pre4 kernel and noticed an
> indordinate amount of warnings..
The warnings are harmless. They indicate bad/unportable code in the kernel
(2.96 is much more aware of standards than any other version).
> A friend told me to switch back to
> gcc 2.95.2 because it is more stable..
Don't. gcc 2.95.2 is known to miscompile kernels.
If you want to play it save, use egcs 1.1.2 (installed as kgcc). Using
2.96-69 (make sure you install the update) generates working kernels (such
as the one I'm currently running).
> Why is RH going with a NON release gcc??
Because it's better. It fully supports C++ (unlike all prior
versions), is ISO C99 compliant, generates better code, and (at least the
version from updates) is LESS buggy, and because we don't want to use very
different compilers for different architectures (2.95.x or egcs 1.1.x on
ia64 is a no-go).
> Why do we need to run 2.91.? of kgcc to compile new kernels...
2.95.* is badly broken. Stabilizing it would have been as much work as
stabilizing 2.96.
> Why all this madness... why not stick to standards?
There is no such thing as a standard compiler.
Most of the perceived "bugs" in 2.96 are actually broken code. It isn't
supposed to compile broken constructs that older versions silently
accepted (because they didn't follow standards).
If you want to stick with standards, get 2.96. ;)
LLaP
bero
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
