xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Announce] XFS 1.1 Prerelease 2 available for testing
From: mdew <mdew@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 22 Mar 2002 13:46:00 +1200
Cc: z@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1016741075.30176.19.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0203212147510.22191-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1016739950.30176.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <021301c1d111$a212b9f0$c801a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1016741075.30176.19.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Whats with the support of a non-standard gcc release "RH's 2.96",
wouldnt it be more appropriate to support *atleast* 2.95.x and 3.0x
since these are official releases?

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/gcc-2.96-3.0.html

We dont live in a RH-centric world, so SGI should atleast support
offical gcc-release versions.

On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 08:04, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 13:50, z@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > | gcc-2.96-101 with good success.  I think that 2.95.x is not so good.
> > 
> >     2.95.x not so good? That's a little scary to me...
> >     could you explain why you feel that way?
> > 
> > | I _really_ hope that some day this question can go away.  :)
> > 
> >     I'll second that...
> 
> xfs exposed some bugs in the 2.95 series, there were reports of 2.95.2
> miscompiling, 2.95.3 may be better...
> 
> -Eric
> 
> -- 
> Eric Sandeen      XFS for Linux     http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
> sandeen@xxxxxxx   SGI, Inc.
-- 
ph33r!
Linux mdew 2.4.18-xfs-preemptive #9 Tue Feb 26 11:45:49 NZDT 2002 i686
unknown



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