Tim Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 07:47:54AM -0700, Clayton Weaver wrote:
|>
|> > What is the second "fi" for?
|>
|> The first "if".
Btw, the Bourne language also has `elif':
CONFIG_SHELL := $(shell if [ -x "$$BASH" ]; then echo $$BASH; \
elif [ -x
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 05:17:46PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Actually there's another compiler (codepro or how is it called), made
> by SGI(?) for merced, available under gpl, and hving all gcc
> extensions, including __asm__().
SGI Pro64 - it's IA64 only and uses the gcc frontends.
But I doub
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 07:47:54AM -0700, Clayton Weaver wrote:
> What is the second "fi" for?
The first "if".
Tim.
*/
PGP signature
Hi!
> > Where does the idea that the kernel 'needs' a special compiler
> > come from ? I have been under the impression that that is just
>
> Mostly from the sad fact that it does.
>
> > what we were trying to get away from . I am reminded of other
> > os's that required thei
> []
> Another problem in Makefile. I guess this change between pre 12 and 13
> is a typo:
> CONFIG_SHELL := $(shell if [ -x "$$BASH" ]; then echo $$BASH; \
> - else if [ -x /bin/bash ]; then echo /bin/bash; \
> + else if [ -x /bin/bash ]; then echo /bin/bash2; \
>else echo
> Another problem in Makefile. I guess this change between pre 12 and 13 is a
> typo:
>
Oops. That was me testing - fixed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:01:34AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> I've dropped Miquel's version into my tree. He simply side steps the entire
> 'which which' issue and uses scripts/kwhich
Peter Samuelson's version worked in my Slackware systems. Miquel's kwhich is
ok too.
Another problem in Makefile.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Patches are welcome. But keep in mind that we _are_ dependent on a
> particular compiler. gcc, that is. I would be glad to get rid of it - the
> codebase is extremely messy. However, removing gcc-isms is a huge
> work. You are welcome to do it, indeed,
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 11:29:13PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> If you get
> a link error or a module load error about bad_udelay let me know.
insmod pcmcia_core.o from pcmcia 3.1.20 gets the T-shirt.
OG.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a me
Compile bombs out in bridging:
br.c: In function `brg_probe':
br.c:2458: `loops_per_sec' undeclared (first use in this function)
br.c:2458: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
br.c:2458: for each function it appears in.)
br.c:2442: warning: `bogomips' might be used uninitialized in
Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> Patches are welcome. But keep in mind that we _are_ dependent on a
> particular compiler. gcc, that is. I would be glad to get rid of it - the
> codebase is extremely messy. However, removing gcc-isms is a huge
> work. You are welcome to do it, in
[Christoph Hellwig]
> If you are using a distribution that ships with a default C compiler
> that is not able to compile linux kernel, use make CC=kgcc (redhat)
> or CC=gcc272 (debian) instead.
That works for >= 2.3.30 or so. For 2.2 it's more like
make CC="kgcc -D__KERNEL__ -I`pwd`/include"
> > Isn't this completely broken? I mean, it wont detect the others at all. It
> > will leave CC="" if gcc272 or kgcc are there.
>
> Yes. Sorry I' too selfish today ;) Your version seems more accurate to me.
I've dropped Miquel's version into my tree. He simply side steps the entire
'which which
> come from ? I have been under the impression that that is just
> what we were trying to get away from . I am reminded of other
> os's that required their propritary compiler in order to create
> a os image . Please let us not travel that road . Tia , JimL
We've alwa
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't this completely broken? I mean, it wont detect the others at all. It
> will leave CC="" if gcc272 or kgcc are there.
Yes. Sorry I' too selfish today ;) Your version seems more accurate to me.
Christoph
--
Always remember that you are uniqu
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 07:30:42PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Forget distributions. There is a very, very good reason to have the choice
> of cc used in kernel builds uncoupled from the userland one. IMO kgcc is a
> misnomer (kcc would be better), but the idea is sound - you don't want to
> de
> - snip -
>
> --- Makefile~ Sun Oct 1 00:46:27 2000
> +++ Makefile Sun Oct 1 00:49:27 2000
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> AS =$(CROSS_COMPILE)as
> LD =$(CROSS_COMPILE)ld
> CC =$(shell if [ -n "$(CROSS_COMPILE)" ]; then echo $(CROSS_COMPILE)cc; else \
> - which gcc272 2>/dev/null |
> I personally dislike the 'autmatically detect kgcc and gcc272' patches a lot,
> and I think we should put a sentence like
>
> If you are using a distribution that ships with a default C compiler that is
> not able to compile linux kernel, use make CC=kgcc (redhat) or CC=gcc272
> (debian) instea
> o Fix the 'which' compiler stuff (Horst von Brand,
>Peter Samuelson)
> | Can someone verify for me this works on Slackware and
> | on Caldera ?
It breaks on Caldera.
The errors are:
-- snip -
bin/s
19 matches
Mail list logo
