GCC 2.95.3 [LFS/BLFS conflicts]
arashi at yomerashi.yi.org
Mon May 12 10:46:39 PDT 2003
On Mon, 12 May 2003 18:24:42 +0100
Ian Molton <spyro at f2s.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 16:29:10 +0000 (UTC)
> gerard at linuxfromscratch.org (Gerard Beekmans) wrote:
> > Not essential but I want to make gcc-2 the "official" LFS kernel
> > compiler as it were so those instrutions need to be in the LFS book
> > too, now.
> I dont agree. I think we should use gcc 3, despite the few flaws.
> having 2 compilers on the system is a pain in the arse.
gcc3 doesn't compile bootable kernels on Alpha. I have first-hand
experienc with this. It's not unthinkable that even in i386 there's
some subtle nuance that could trigger "bad code" for some configuration
you or I don't use.
I think at the very least we need to highlight this issue and let the
user choose. It's not really *that* much of pain to have two compilers
around ... it's just another package compilation and another thing to
check in the kernel compile. Now, putting them in the same prefix and
preserving documentation and everything for them is a pain. :P
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