On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 11:57:41PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > >
> > > well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the
> > > original
> > > sources of gcc 2.95.2..
> > >
> >
> > I have no idea where you get this from. The comp
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 12:29:06AM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > It's unfortunate, that 2.95.x development got stuck somewhere.
There's a limited amount of manpower. If you want to contribute to the 2.95
branch, feel free. The release manager is
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
> that's some kind of misinformation. 2.95.4 is derived from 2.95.3,
> following the gcc-2_95-branch on CVS.
ok, accepted, see my previous posting. i really have nothing against
2.95.4 as such...
> It's unfortunate, that 2.95.x development got stuck som
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the
> > original
> > sources of gcc 2.95.2..
> >
>
> I have no idea where you get this from. The compiler core is straight
> from GCC's 2.95.4, plus some CVS patches. Yeah, maybe part
Peter Koellner writes:
> well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from
> the original sources of gcc 2.95.2..
that's some kind of misinformation. 2.95.4 is derived from 2.95.3,
following the gcc-2_95-branch on CVS.
Documentation/Changes reads:
The recommended compiler for t
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 11:11:53PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the
> original sources of gcc 2.95.2..
That part is just not true. It's a branch snapshot from after the
release of 2.95.3.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
>
> well, and then take the fact that dpkg gcc 2.95.4 is derived from the original
> sources of gcc 2.95.2..
>
I have no idea where you get this from. The compiler core is straight
from GCC's 2.95.4, plus some CVS patches. Yeah, maybe parts like libg++
are still the same version as from 2.95.2,
On 16 Feb 2002, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Now, there are unfortunately very comlex interactions between the
> compiler version and specific constructs used in the Linux kernel that
> may cause miscompilations. However, without investigating the specific
> case, nobody can give a recommendation whi
Peter Koellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sure. maybe i did not made quite clear, that i did not expect help with
> the compilation error at all, but was asking for the current method to set
> up a debian system for kernel development tasks, so that i don't get
> a response of "use the right co
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> feasibly give you an answer because there are hundreds of ways that
> there could be a problem with the compiler in that case. Our best effort
> would simply be to point you to the list of several hundred bugs and let
> you peruse them to see if they relat
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:56:22PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > This is definitely a source bug in i810_audio.c. In 2.5.x somewhere, the
> > remap_page_range() function changed its expected arguments. Seems this
> > driver wasn't updated.
>
> yes, i
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> This is definitely a source bug in i810_audio.c. In 2.5.x somewhere, the
> remap_page_range() function changed its expected arguments. Seems this
> driver wasn't updated.
yes, i know. the whole point was this: for me as a developer, the first
check for in
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:40:01PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > How about telling us the error? We use out 2.95.4 compiler to create out
> > own images for Debian kernels. So if you want a sane answer, instead of
> > some rambling guesses, supply the
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> How about telling us the error? We use out 2.95.4 compiler to create out
> own images for Debian kernels. So if you want a sane answer, instead of
> some rambling guesses, supply the damn error.
well, as i said... there is no difference in behaviour betwe
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 05:17:53PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > You'd probably get a better response if you actually explain your
> > compile error.
>
> well, it is known that kernel source is a bit picky about compilers and
> kernel developers don'
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
> You'd probably get a better response if you actually explain your
> compile error.
well, it is known that kernel source is a bit picky about compilers and
kernel developers don't want to be bothered with bug reports that might
be caused by using a differe
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 04:07:38PM +0100, Peter Koellner wrote:
> hi!
>
> i have run into some compilation problems with the 2.5.5 development kernel
> and before sending an irrelevant bug report to the kernel code maintainer
> i would like to make sure i do use the right compiler version.
> kerne
17 matches
Mail list logo
