xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS in RHL 7.1

To: Juha Saarinen <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS in RHL 7.1
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:44:11 -0400
Cc: "linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0104190943500.17050-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Juha Saarinen wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Russell Cattelan wrote:
>
> > Hmm why is  a  big problem?
>
> Because people will use gcc 2.96 instead of kgcc? ;-)

Not unless they specifically change the Makefile back to gcc.
Our installer has add compat-egcs when the kernel development option
is selected so recompiling the kernel with kgcc shouldn't be any more
or less painful.


As Steve already stated; given the number of strange problems that has
occurred in past by switching compilers, we don't feel comfortable
making 2.96 the default until more testing can be done.

I suggested to Steve we may want to add his patch with a compiler switch around
it,
or we may risk it...  toss it in... since it doesn't appear to not work with
kgcc.

Due to some not technical delays with the 1.0 release it looks like we
will have time to consider our options.


>
>
> >
> > RH also shipping compat-egcs aka kgcc.
> > Which is what we are currently building with.
> >
> > Steve has a kernel running using RH 2.96 compiler, (with a few code tweaks)
> > So this will be fixed in the future, but we have to be careful to work with
> > other versions of the compiler as many people will not be using RH's version
> > of gcc to compile.
>
> Yep, saw Steve's message. I haven't had very many problems with 2.96
> myself (compiled X, KDE 2.1.1, the kernel and modules, glibc) and the
> system is stable. Have heard of a few mishaps though, so...
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Juha
>
> PGP fingerprint:
> B7E1 CC52 5FCA 9756 B502  10C8 4CD8 B066 12F3 9544

--
Russell Cattelan
--
Digital Elves inc. -- Currently on loan to SGI
Linux XFS core developer.




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>