> -gcc 2.95.2 is 99% ready but not 100%. It happenned only a couple > times in dozens of builds I made with it but I caught it miscompiling > or failing to compile things who compiled well with egcs. We have one known kernel problem left with gcc 2.95.2 and x86 in 2.2.16pre and its weird. You need to have the right subspecies of 3c90x card, gcc 2.95.X, a network with errors on it, and a bit of bad luck. If your box fits that then you get ethernet hangs which go away with older compilers. A lot of staring at asm has produced no answers but we suspect now it might not even be gcc but a timing issue on issuing commands - perhaps even a bug in the chip -- To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Shutko
- RE: Why no i586/i686 support? Joseph Malicki
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Cox
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Cox
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Thomas Dodd
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Julie
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Chris Abbey
- Scripting Spawn