On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 04:30:19PM +0100, Gábor Lénárt wrote:
> True, but as it's known, gcc-2.96 is NOT an official gcc release by the gcc
> team. It was RedHat's fault to fetch a development CVS gcc snapshot and
> release it as gcc 2.96 in RedHat distributions, while object format used by
> 2.96 is not compatible with 2.95 nor 3.0.x at least according information
> can be found on site of gcc.
That is only the case for C++. And the same is true for egcs -> 2.95.x and
from 2.95.x -> 3.0.x and from 3.0.x -> 3.1
> It was very ROTFL RedHat to release kgcc to be
> able to compile kernel.
gcc 3.0 doesn't compile 2.2 kernels. "2.96" is like 3.0 in that respect. All
2.4 kernel RPMs from Red Hat are compiled with the "2.96" gcc.
> [Also, while developing MPlayer we had got problems with even
> newer 2.96's, so we do not recommend it in the dox, and ./configure won't
> able you to use 2.96 without a special configure switch ...]
I noticed yes. Most likely a case of broken inline asm.....
gcc 3 will break just as much
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 23 2001 - 21:00:33 EST