Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g5QMLMnC022752 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:21:23 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g5QMLMJM022751 for linux-xfs-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:21:22 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from UberGeek ([209.184.141.190]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g5QMLBnC022721 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:21:11 -0700 Received: (qmail 26225 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2002 22:24:32 -0000 Subject: Re: C compiler... From: Austin Gonyou To: Seth Mos Cc: Charles Shannon Hendrix , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020626181932.039d32a8@pop.xs4all.nl> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020626181932.039d32a8@pop.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-1yQ1O16yt1dxwHoJdMcz" Organization: Coremetrics, Inc. X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 26 Jun 2002 17:24:32 -0500 Message-Id: <1025130272.26008.1.camel@UberGeek> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk --=-1yQ1O16yt1dxwHoJdMcz Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've been using gcc 3.1 for kernels, glibc, and anything else I compile. so far so good without any compiler related issues AFAIK ATM. Nothing but *blazing* speed and usually good optimizations.=20 On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 11:26, Seth Mos wrote: > At 10:58 26-6-2002 -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote: >=20 > >I note that the XFS patches suggest using egcs 2.91.66 to build > >the kernel. However, some new distributions (like Slackware) don't > >even ship with that compiler any more. While it's easy enough to > get, > >I believe the kernel is supposed to be stable on later releases now. > > > >What are your feelings on using other versions of gcc for XFS builds? >=20 > 2.95.3 is used out there in various distributions and works for most=20 > people. I have not seen any take messages in a while that fixed bugs > with=20 > respect to compilers. >=20 > 2.91.66 is the most tested compiler and is used for any SGI=20 > releases/installers. it's not that it won't work with other compilers. > That=20 > period is long gone. >=20 > >What about GCC 3.1.latest? >=20 > People are using it. No real problems AFAIK (or they are not speaking > up). > we have seen more reports on the various 2.96 compilers then the gcc 3 > branch. The latest errata gcc-2.96 from redhat (or from 7.3) does > works as=20 > advertised. >=20 > Cheers >=20 > -- > Seth > It might just be your lucky day, if you only knew. --=20 Austin Gonyou Coremetrics, Inc. --=-1yQ1O16yt1dxwHoJdMcz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA9Gj8g94g6ZVmFMoIRAuRkAJ0RsX38HFyFC+7EAdKlvutSNQlulACePP/N n/7H2y74FEeyiXqumcz93KQ= =CgX5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-1yQ1O16yt1dxwHoJdMcz--