This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: gcc 3.1 fails to build Linux 2.4.7 kernel on i686-linux


> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> > > Then how could the linux-2.4.0.tar.gz kernel source end up in the
> > > release criteria of GCC-3.1 ?
> > 
> > I think that's a very bad choice.  Linux is know for abusing
> > undocumented gcc features and having compiping an ancient kernel source
> > tree as release criteria will never allow gcc to progress.

I believe kernel has been choosen as one of most important software projects
compiled by gcc.  It appears to be good test stressing some aspects of gcc
others don't.
> > 
> > Having a _current_ kernel appear in the release criteria might make
> > sense, and even that only with enough cooperation from us kernel folks.
> 
> 2.4.0 is in the 3.1 criteria because they were copied from the 3.0
> criteria, and the Release Manager and SC still need to overhaul them to
> reflect current intent properly.  Note that the top of that page says:
> 
>    This document is still in its larval stage, and should not yet be
>    taken as canonical. Most of the text is only a placeholder.
> 
> 2.4.0 is in the 3.0 criteria because they had listed 2.2.14 (current
> stable kernel when they were written), but once 2.4 was released it seemed
> more appropriate than a 2.2 kernel to expect to compile with a new GCC.
> 
> In practice this part of the release criteria didn't seem to get applied
> for 3.0 - there weren't any regular status reports before the release
> collecting details of what worked on what platforms, and what needed to be
> made to work before release, and Linux 2.4.x compilation with 3.0.y didn't
> work until about 3.0.3.

Concerning the current state, I believe it is the 2.4.18 that first compiles
with gcc 3.1 w/o problems.  I am just using 3.1 compiled kernel and noticed no
problem.  There has been few bugs.
I even compiled working kernel with -mregparm=3 some time ago, but it has
been patched slightly as previous kernels didn't compile cleanly.

I guess we should just put 2.4.18 in the criteria and update it of more
kernel bugs comes and gets fixed later.

Honza
> 
> -- 
> Joseph S. Myers
> jsm28@cam.ac.uk


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]