on Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:03:08AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8 Apr, Broun, Bevan wrote: > > Just a note: make sure your dont compile with that RH gcc (2.96). > > Why not? It's the default version of gcc on RH7.2, and I did nothing > special for building any of the 2 dozen or so kernels I've experimented > with over the last few months, with no compiler-ish problems. (Just > hardware, and scsi error handling problems.) Unless the kernel build > is set up to use a special version of gcc squirrelled away specially > for the purpose, by the makefiles?
Version 2.96 of gcc was made by RH, not the gcc people. the 2.96 came out with version 7.0 of RH and at that time they also provided kgcc (or kcc) for kernel compiles, Im not sure this is needed for later series 7 releases. However, I always grab the latest 2.9 release of gcc and build that, though the 3.0 series seems to be doing fine for kernel compiles these days too. On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:56:24AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > As this is with Red Hat's version of gcc, I'm not sending > > this to the gcc folks. RPMs of gcc with this proble BB -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
