Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020626181932.039d32a8@pop.xs4all.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:26:16 +0200
To: Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon@widomaker.com>, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: C compiler...
In-Reply-To: <20020626145830.GB7973@widomaker.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

At 10:58 26-6-2002 -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:

>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?

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.

Cheers

--
Seth
It might just be your lucky day, if you only knew.