On Sun, 4 Feb 2018, Jason Duerstock wrote:
Does the kernel from here work for you?:
Yes, it works for our machine. Thanks!
It's amazing that you came to the same solution as regards the use of
gcc-4.4 a while ago! If we could find it before, it'd have saved us some
experiments. (The lack of a working installaton image which is easy to
find was also discouraging at the first stage.)
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Ivan Zakharyaschev <i...@altlinux.org> wrote:
As for gathering information, I can't think of some useful information
from a working system so far. The same applies to testing. We are able to
test it here. Anyway, thanks for your messages, Frank and Daniel! The
remaining useful tasks which I see are:
1) learn how to compile a bootable kernel for this machine and apply this
knowledge to compile a fresh current kernel;
2) understand what goes wrong (by bisecting gcc), suggest a fix. (Before
we understand it, we can't be sure what should be fixed: it's not
necessarily abug in gcc).
So far, we've done a number of attempts to compile and boot a kernel (I'm
going to post the details and the kernels soon), and my conclusion so far is
that the only affecting factor is the version of gcc (even not -O1 vs
gcc <= 4.5.3 produces a bootable kernel (as for
linux-image-3.2.0-4-mckinley, gcc 4.4.7 from wheezy and gcc 4.5.3 from
snapshots produced a bootable one in my experiments);
gcc > = 4.6.3 produces a non-bootable kernel.
So this already gives an initial hypothesis about the solution to 1):
To compile a bootable kernel for this machine, use gcc <= 4.5.3.