On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 08:43:36AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:06:26 -0400 > "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did you check your compile logs to see if it actually compiled with > > gcc-2.95 or with just gcc (==3.3) ? It happened to me several times that > > when building 2.4.21, it would use gcc-2.95 for the initial configuration > > and cleanup targets (since I specified CC=gcc-2.95), but revert to gcc for > > the actual build. > > That is most likely what happened. I didn't check logs. Didn't care. It > didn't work, fuggit, I needed the machine stable and was mighty pissed that I > couldn't just rip 3.3 off the damned system to force the issue without > resorting to a serious downgrade to woody packages just to do it.
Downgrading sounds like overkill in this situation. I only had to edit /usr/src/linux/Makefile to change HOSTCC to gcc-2.95 and export CC=gcc-2.95 in the environment, and it worked fine for me. This is on 2.4.21, of course, but I suspect the same holds for 2.4.20. > > I had to hand-edit kernel makefiles to stop it from using gcc by default > > and use gcc-2.95 instead. Or perhaps try setting CC=gcc-2.95 in your > > environment before running the build. > > Might have worked but forcing the issue is better IMHO. Without 3.3 > present there is absolutely no chance of some process down the line sanitizing > the environment and monkeying up the works. [snip] ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-2.95 /usr/bin/gcc <build kernel> ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-3.3 /usr/bin/gcc Problem fixed. T -- Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself. -- Herman Hesse