news about default kernel compliers
kelledin+LFS at skarpsey.dyndns.org
Mon Jun 23 17:21:07 PDT 2003
On Monday 23 June 2003 11:54 am, Steve Prior wrote:
> I was wondering about compilers and Red Hat 8.0 - they seem to
> use gcc 3.2 and I thought that was a no no for recompiling the
> kernel, but they have no special notes (or an alternative
> compiler) about doing so. Does anyone know if it is really OK
> to rebuild a kernel with this level of the compiler?
It depends on the platform. I would guesstimate that it's OK for
x86 at this point, and the kernel developers are just being
ultra-conservative in recommending 2.95.3 for x86.
That recommendation doesn't apply to all platforms, though, and
IIRC the kernel docs state that quite clearly. On some non-x86
platforms, gcc3 is kind of a necessity to build a kernel. On
Alpha, gcc-2.95.3 has a habit of ICEing when compiling SMP
kernels. And for AMD64, I don't think gcc-2.x even exists...
Oh, also: make sure your kernel and modules are ALL compiled by
the same compiler. A gcc2-compiled kernel will oops quite
rapidly under load if you insmod gcc3-compiled modules, and I'm
betting the reverse (gcc3-compiled kernel+gcc2-compiled modules)
is also true. IIRC modutils now has code to detect such
mismatches and complain, but once upon a time it did not!
"If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does
it still cost four figures to fix?"
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev