On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 01:08:59AM +0200, Horms wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:20:31PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:55:42 +0300, Horms wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:39:55PM +0300, Andres Salomon wrote: > > [...] > > >> - i'm leaning towards using gcc-3.3, as i'm afraid of gcc-4.0 > > >> miscompiling things. however, if any architectures require gcc-4.0, > > >> either let me know, or update svn directly. > > > > > > How are you planing to do that. > > > I need to do something about the fact that users go and > > > grab kernel-source-2.4.27 and it doesn't compile with the > > > default gcc any more. Here are three solutions I have thought. > > > > > > 1. Document this somewhere > > > 2. Change the makefile to default to gcc-3.3 > > > 3. Change the makefile to print out a nice error if gcc version >=4.0 > > > > > > In all cases it seems it would be good to recommend gcc-3.3. > > > > > > > Actually, enough people on IRC have said that gcc-4.0 works for that, that > > I'm not convinced gcc-3.3 is necessary. I'm on the fence, I could go > > either way. > > I for one haven't been able to compile 2.4.27 (from sarge) with gcc-4.0, > it dies horribly, and as I understand there is no interest uptream in > making 2.4 friendly to gcc-4.0. Sure it might work for some > configurations, but I'm pretty sure its broken for enough that its a > problem, the 686 config in sarge for starters.
2.4 on x86 is supposed to go away for etch anyway though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
