On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 12:06:31PM +, David Wragg wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If 2.96 is broken, I'd appreciate it if you would describe the breakage.
>
> As in the RedHat 2.96? Try compiling the following on RedHat 7.0 x86
> with "gcc -O2" and take a look at th
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 07:48:08PM -0400, David Relson wrote:
> Horst,
>
> What you say is correct. Early comments on gcc-2.96 reflected preprocessor
> changes which made it impossible to compile a kernel. Later comments,
> particularly David Wragg's "struct itimerval" example, show that comp
At 05:44 AM 10/23/00, Horst von Brand wrote:
>David Relson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>Not just a preprocessor change.
>...
>This is true for a correct compiler (ever seen a correct piece of
>software?) compiling strictly standard-conforming source. The kernel is
>_not_ standard-conforming, and
David Relson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> At 09:14 PM 10/22/00, Horst von Brand wrote:
> >Jurgen Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > You can blame it on the compiler which is included with RH7.0. It's a
> > > pre-release version of some sort. It seems that the gcc people are not
> > > happy that
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 12:05:22PM -0400, Aaron Sethman wrote:
> [..] gcc is doing the right thing, just not what you expected.
This code:
iv.it_interval.tv_sec = 0;
iv.it_interval.tv_usec = 25;
iv.it_value = iv.it_interval;
got miscompiled as:
iv.it_value
Aaron Sethman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Try compiling the said code with -fno-strict-aliasing, and your problems
> will be solved.
Yes, but I don't think I should have to give gcc flags to get it to
obey the C standard (my example can easily be turned into a
self-contained strictly conforming
Try compiling the said code with -fno-strict-aliasing, and your problems
will be solved. gcc is doing the right thing, just not what you expected.
The kernel already checks to see if gcc can grok -fno-strict-aliasing
Aaron
On 23 Oct 2000, David Wragg wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If 2.96 is broken, I'd appreciate it if you would describe the breakage.
As in the RedHat 2.96? Try compiling the following on RedHat 7.0 x86
with "gcc -O2" and take a look at the generated code. Nice, isn't it?
#include
void foo(void)
{
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 11:16:36PM -0400, David Relson wrote:
> At 09:14 PM 10/22/00, Horst von Brand wrote:
> >Jurgen Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > You can blame it on the compiler which is included with RH7.0. It's a
> > > pre-release version of some sort. It seems that the gcc peop
At 09:14 PM 10/22/00, Horst von Brand wrote:
>Jurgen Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > You can blame it on the compiler which is included with RH7.0. It's a
> > pre-release version of some sort. It seems that the gcc people are not
> > happy that RH included this version with RH7.
>
>It is th
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:12:06PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [...]
> > If you are going to upgrade, you should at least consider going to
> > 2.4.0test-flavor-of-week, so that your crashes will at least contribute to
> > Linux development. :)
>
>
"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It has come to our attention that some GNU/Linux distributions are
> currently shipping with ``GCC 2.96''.
Please, not again!
Red Hat 7.0's "GCC 2.96" is binary compatible for C with all past and
future versions. It will probably not be binary c
Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> If you are going to upgrade, you should at least consider going to
> 2.4.0test-flavor-of-week, so that your crashes will at least contribute to
> Linux development. :)
Careful there! 2.4.0-test10-pre3 on i686 is the prime suspect in massive
reor
Jurgen Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You can blame it on the compiler which is included with RH7.0. It's a
> pre-release version of some sort. It seems that the gcc people are not
> happy that RH included this version with RH7.
It is the *kernel's* fault, as far as can be ascertained now. T
c>
"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:43:30 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
[...]
> I am now compiling my 2.2.18-pre kernels with gcc-2.95 and work fine. It is
> 2.96 what is broken.
2.95.2 has been working with kernels for quite some time. 2.96+ should (?)
work with
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Jurgen Kramer wrote:
>Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:02:19 +0200
>From: Jurgen Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Hamid Hashemi Golpayegani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Subject: Re: Kerne
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Hamid Hashemi Golpayegani wrote:
>Hi ,
>
>I have download kernel-2.2.17 from kernel.org and wanna to compile it under
>redhat 7 . when compiling start after few minutes show me this error message
>:
>
>make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/arch/i386/lib'
>gcc -D__K
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:00:14AM +0200, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:36:14 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > > I am now compiling my 2.2.18-pre kernels with gcc-2.95 and work fine. It is
> > > 2.96 what is broken.
> >
> > It compiles. Does it really work fine for all tasks an
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:36:14 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > I am now compiling my 2.2.18-pre kernels with gcc-2.95 and work fine. It is
> > 2.96 what is broken.
>
> It compiles. Does it really work fine for all tasks and all people? Who
> knows. It is know that your described configuration is no
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Due to bugs in the Linux kernel, it may only be compiled by certain versions
> of GCC. GCC 2.7.2 or EGCS 1.1.2 are only supported compilers
> (linux/Documentation/Changes).
>
> Unfortunately, 2.7.2 and EGCS 1.1.2 are really crapp
-- Forwarded message --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
It has come to our attention that some GNU/Linux distributions are
currently shipping with ``GCC 2.96''.
We would like to point out that GCC 2.96 is not a formal GCC release nor
will there ever be such a release. Rathe
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 12:15:08AM +0200, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:43:30 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > Due to bugs in the Linux kernel, it may only be compiled by certain versions
> > of GCC. GCC 2.7.2 or EGCS 1.1.2 are only supported compilers
> > (linux/Documentation/Ch
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:43:30 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> Due to bugs in the Linux kernel, it may only be compiled by certain versions
> of GCC. GCC 2.7.2 or EGCS 1.1.2 are only supported compilers
> (linux/Documentation/Changes).
"Bugs" in the kernel are related with things like supposing that
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:54:32 Hamid Hashemi Golpayegani wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I have download kernel-2.2.17 from kernel.org and wanna to compile it under
> redhat 7 . when compiling start after few minutes show me this error message
> :
>
> make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/arch/i386/
Hi,
You can blame it on the compiler which is included with RH7.0. It's a
pre-release version of
some sort. It seems that the gcc people are not happy that RH included this
version with RH7.
Cheers,
Jurgen
Hamid Hashemi Golpayegani wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I have download kernel-2.2.17 from kernel.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 12:24:32AM +0330, Hamid Hashemi Golpayegani wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I have download kernel-2.2.17 from kernel.org and wanna to compile it under
> redhat 7 . when compiling start after few minutes show me this error message
> :
Due to bugs in the Linux kernel, it may only be com
Hamid,
RedHat includes two versions of gcc. gcc-2.96 is a developmental snapshot
of the compiler project and is not able to build a kernel. Also included
is kgcc, as in KernelGCC, which is what you should be using. If you don't
have the kgcc...rpm installed, install that and use it.
David
27 matches
Mail list logo
