On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:02:08AM -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Aly Dharshi wrote:
> >
> > > So was this the kcc or kgcc compiler, or was that something else
> > > altogether ?
> >
> > Yes, kgcc.
>
> I doubt it. I don't even have kgcc installed, and no problem building
> anything. I think kgcc was just a 7.x creature, back when early 2.96
> compilers had trouble with kernel building. Later 2.96 build kernels
> fine (as do 3.x):
Yes, the point I was trying to make was that kgcc (or even old gcc
versions) haven't been included recently because the default compiler *is*
the compiler used for the kernel. The reference to kgcc was just to
demonstrate that RH would certainly have provided a kernel-capable
compiler if their current gcc didn't do the job (at least as far as their
own QA goes).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] hal]$ ssh feenix uptime
> 7:11am up 247 days, 3:23, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03,0.00
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] hal]$ ssh feenix gcc -v
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs
> gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.2 2.96-112.7.2)
>
>
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
