GCC 2.95.3 [LFS/BLFS conflicts]

Ian Molton spyro at f2s.com
Mon May 12 15:49:31 PDT 2003


On Mon, 12 May 2003 19:08:17 +0000 (UTC)
arashi at yomerashi.yi.org (Matt Reppert) wrote:

> > You should remember that whilst the 'kernel developers' may
> > recommend it, some of their recommendations have been completely
> > nutso. 
> 
> Like what?

I must admit I cant remember the last one, but then, I havent read LKML
for some months now...

> > Who here has *ACTUALLY* had a problem using gcc 3 to compile kernels
> > (and I mean a recent version, not gcc<nearlybutnotquite3fromcvs>)?
> 
> Me. Using 3.2.2 or 3.2.3. No, it was not on i386.

either of them, or you cant remember which?

why dont we make a list of failures?
 
> > The current situation:
> > 
> > gcc-2.95.3 - miscompiles some kernel features
> > gcc-3.x.x - miscompile some kernel features.
> > 
> > The only difference is in which features get miscompiled.
> 
> No, the point is that 2.95 has had lots of testing. 3.{2,3,4} have had
> relatively little testing. 2.95.x (x >= 3) have been relatively
> proven, the newer versions haven't. It's just a question of "don't
> jump to new releases immediately because it's not safe".

If you read back over the archives, you'll find I've been a pretty
staunch 'dont do that yet, its not necessary or useful' advocate in the
past.

in this case though, I really dont see any more or less breakage with
2.95.3 than 3.x

in fact, with all the vendors applying their own patches, I'd be fairly
surprised if any two distros claiming to be 2.95.3 actually compiled the
kernel the same as each other.

stock gcc 3.x may well be more consistent...

> Honestly, I don't see why you're so adamantly against preferred use of
> 2.95.3 *only for the kernel*.

Having two compilers around is messy and opens up a whole world of
possible breakage if someone accidentally prgets to reset PATH...

> It's the *safer* thing to do, so it goes
> in the main book for people who haven't read up on the situation and
> such. That's generally the way the main book releases tend to lean.
> People who know what they're doing don't have to follow the book, so
> I'm not sure why this is such a big deal.

Its just such a bodge. I dont like it, and it wont help 99.99999% of
people. those who it affects will know full well that it affects them,
like people compiling for odd architectures (ie. !x86)

> It's not like the kernel developers have some sort of fetish for
> ancient toolchains (except maybe akpm -_^ ); they recently (well, in
> October or November) had to up the minimum required version of
> binutils due to some change or another.

exactly - they only up the version when they *have* to. that doesnt mean
that the later versions are inherently broken.

> BTW, No distribution uses the actual gcc 2.95.3 release anymore, it's
> CVS plus any patches that haven't been/won't be integrated upstream. 

<cut>

> I think that makes this recommendation all the more reasonable. 

Having multiple different-but-identically-named compilers that claim to
be the recommended version is *reasonable* ?

-- 
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Systems programmers keep it up longer.
-- 
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