> > bunch of assembler warnings during the build? May be those warnings can
> > explain (at least partially) why don't the resulting kernel behave?
>
> Understand something here. If 2.2.14 or 2.2.15 builds perfectly with gcc 2.95.1
> I will be happy. I want it to build and work with all the new compilers. Equally
> from a production perspective right now we know it doesnt work, right now
> it hasn't had sufficient testing with the patches.
>
> All Im trying to say is - if you are building a kernel to go out on CD, to
> run on a web server, professionally for a client etc - be aware that 2.95*
> is the wrong thing to build it with. If you want to build with 2.95.1 on
> non critical machines and help change this then great,
OK, I do have several machines which I can experiment on. My next CD is not
that close yet to be afraid of having a currently buggy kernel. Anyway, my
next distribution will hopefully be built 'round 2.4.x...
So please do expect detailed bug reports for 2.2.x & gcc-2.95.1. Sure
enough, I'll do my best to help you in bug hunting.
===========================================================================
Sergey Kubushin aka the Tamer < > The impossible we do immediately.
e-mail: ksi@ksi-linux.com SK320-RIPE < > Miracles require 24-hour notice.
===========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/