On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:32:30 -0400, Jakub Jelinek blurted forth:
> The fact that we recommend using kgcc (especially for 2.2 kernels) does not
> mean that the default gcc is broken, but simply that using it for kernels
> has not been tested yet too much and there can be e.g. bugs in the way
> kernel uses inline assembly and the likes.
Again, you miss the entire point, which you brush upon here: Redhat 7.0
is supposed to be a 'stable' release, suddenly thousands of people have
been snagging the iso's for it, then there will be people who have
problems compiling new kernels for it and they'll have problems for it
once in awhile (i've seen quite a few cases reported on irc.. of
course, i refer them to this list). Now, while this problem is being
worked on and will eventually be solved, it just doesn't seem like a
logical thing to me to call a buggy release 'stable'. But then, it's
not my decision so I guess I'll just stop right there before someone
else decides to flame me. ;)
> See above, it does not sum up anything. The only thing is that if somebody
> is reporting a bug on lkml, he'd just better first made sure it is
> reproduceable with kgcc as well (bug reports for kernels compiled with
> gcc 2.95 have been handled this way for a long time on lkml).
Considering he's already stated that he's reproduced this on a few
machines, I'd say that says it all right there.
-- .oO gnea at rochester dot rr dot com Oo. .oO url: http://garson.org/~gnea Oo."You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish" -unknown
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:19 EST