Any idea when gcc 3.3 will be out?
arashi at yomerashi.yi.org
Thu May 1 08:33:16 PDT 2003
On Thu, 1 May 2003 11:20:51 +0200 (CEST)
Csaba Henk <tphhec01 at degas.ceu.hu> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2003 Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> > Just check it out from CVS and have a play, I haven't had any issues with
> > it yet and have completed a full pLFS build using it as the main compiler
> > (cvs 20030404)...
> > Just DON'T build your kernel with it ;-)
> Last time when I read the PLFS hint, IIRC, it was written that it is
> advised to use gcc-2.95, just to stay on the safe side, as this
> compiler is suggested by kernel people.
> But there was no categorical emphasis behind this suggestion. It was
> really just a "better stay on the safe side"-like precautionary statement.
> Now you say categorically don't use the bleeding edge compiler. Why? And
> what about gcc-3.2?
Because there have been reports of gcc 3.x compilers (yes, including from
the 3.2 branch) mis-compiling kernels on various architectures, while this
is relatively unheard of with gcc 2.95.x. I myself have had kernels
not boot on Alpha when compiled with gcc 3.2.2, but work fine with 2.95.
(I've had better luck on i386, but that might just be because I wasn't using
SCSI, and one of the things that silently miscompiles is SCSI.)
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