Message-Id: <200206261903.g5QJ3tnC013684@oss.sgi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
From: Adrian Head <ahead@bigpond.net.au>
To: Seth Mos <knuffie@xs4all.nl>,
   Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon@widomaker.com>, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: C compiler...
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:07:13 +1000
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020626181932.039d32a8@pop.xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020626181932.039d32a8@pop.xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:26, Seth Mos wrote:
> At 10:58 26-6-2002 -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> >What are your feelings on using other versions of gcc for XFS builds?
>
> 2.95.3 is used out there in various distributions and works for most
> people. I have not seen any take messages in a while that fixed bugs with
> respect to compilers.
>
> 2.91.66 is the most tested compiler and is used for any SGI
> releases/installers. it's not that it won't work with other compilers. That
> period is long gone.
>
> >What about GCC 3.1.latest?
>
> 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
> advertised.

>From my experience I have successfully compiled XFS on a couple versions of 
gcc: 2.91.66, 2.96, 3.0.x.  However, from experience the issue is with 
debugging as kdb doesn't always show the truth with anything but 2.91.66

-- 
Adrian Head

(Public Key available on request.)