news about default kernel compliers

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Tue Jun 24 17:00:29 PDT 2003


On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:35:59AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> At Usenix a couple of weeks ago, I asked Ted T'so what compiler to use 
> with the kernel and he told me gcc-3.2.
>  -- Bruce

Bruce, I'm truly amazed that you could make such a vague statement, lacking
in technical detail, even after attending a technical conference!

How about at least specifying which kernel version you're talking about?
This is a CRITICAL point which lots of folk seem to miss.


FWIW, this is my current take on the situation:-

2.95.x is still the preferred compiler for kernels 2.4.x. This is what LFS
should be using in the book. No ifs or buts. 3.2.x or 3.3 will mostly work
(at least on X86) but if anyone does so, they are on their own and will not
get support or have bug reports taken seriously. Excuses like "but Suse or
Redhat or DistroX compile their kernels with 3.x" just do not cut it. Those
distros generally have real developers and real quality control i.e. a paid
workforce to ensure things work. Not to mention massive userbases. For
"absolute rock solid production quality stability" use gcc-2.95.x to compile
your 2.4.x kernels.

2.5/2.6 is a different kettle of fish. I get the impression from reading
lkml that majority of developers are now using 3.2.x and now even 3.3. Even
Linus himself appears to be using 3.2.x. Andrew Morton is a notable
exception and has voiced his anti 3.x views on many an occasion. When 2.6
gets released and goes into the book, we can then reevaluate. But one thing
is for certain, just blindly using the latest "compiler of the day" is not
the right thing to do.

IMHO.

Greg
-- 
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 mailing list