OK, it turns out one change involves structure packing.
I'm not sure of the others, but I have confirmed that 3.2 will not build a working linuxbios and 2.96 will (on Redhat 8.0). The problems are in the MP table creation and/or parsing.
ron
* Ronald G Minnich rminnich@lanl.gov [021021 21:08]:
OK, it turns out one change involves structure packing.
I'm not sure of the others, but I have confirmed that 3.2 will not build a working linuxbios and 2.96 will (on Redhat 8.0). The problems are in the MP table creation and/or parsing.
Have you tried to play with the strict aliasing option in gcc? This should change gcc's behavior on packing data into structs or unions.
Stefan
I'm not sure of the others, but I have confirmed that 3.2 will not build a working linuxbios and 2.96 will (on Redhat 8.0). The
problems are
in the MP table creation and/or parsing.
gcc 2.96 is not a real release, more of a redhat branch off the 3.0 dev tree that gnu disavows. There are notes somewhere about this but I couldn't quickly find the link. I would consider anything that 2.96 does or does not do, to be a laboratory curiosity. Can you compile a linux kernel with either 2.96 or 3.2?
I think debian installs 2.95.4, but also has a 3.0 version. I use 2.95.x and have no problems.
-Steve
* Steve M. Gehlbach steve@nexpath.com [021021 22:34]:
gcc 2.96 is not a real release, more of a redhat branch off the 3.0 dev tree that gnu disavows. There are notes somewhere about this but I couldn't quickly find the link.
Which is understandable from their point of view, keeping the user base at a certain level to gain reliable input. On the other hand back when Redhat started using gcc 2.96, it was the only compiler that was actually usable on most no-x86 platforms. (This does not apply for the first release they packed with their distribution, but anything later proved to be worlds better than gcc 2.95, i.e. on Alpha, Sparc, ... gcc 2.96 was also the first compiler to support Itanium)
I would consider anything that 2.96 does or does not do, to be a laboratory curiosity. Can you compile a linux kernel with either 2.96 or 3.2?
The 2.2 kernel needs a lot of fixes to go through 3.2, but compiles and works great with 2.96. For Kernel 2.4 both are perfectly ok.
I think debian installs 2.95.4, but also has a 3.0 version. I use 2.95.x and have no problems.
If LinuxBIOS is up to support non-intel platforms, gcc 3 should be considered a must. If you get anywhere with 2.95.x on those platforms, you are really lucky.
Stefan
gcc 2.96 is not a real release, more of a redhat branch off the
3.0 dev tree
that gnu disavows. There are notes somewhere about this but I couldn't quickly find the link.
Which is understandable from their point of view, keeping the user base at a certain level to gain reliable input. On the other hand back when Redhat started using gcc 2.96, it was the only compiler that was actually usable on most no-x86 platforms. (This does not apply for the first release they packed with their distribution, but anything later proved to be worlds better than gcc 2.95, i.e. on Alpha, Sparc, ... gcc 2.96 was also the first compiler to support Itanium)
Thanks for the explanation. I think I got the first release of 2.96. Didn't work very well and caused quite a ruckus on the net. I've since stuck with debian without problems, but I only compile for x86.
-Steve
Stefan Reinauer stepan@suse.de writes:
I think debian installs 2.95.4, but also has a 3.0 version. I use 2.95.x and have no problems.
If LinuxBIOS is up to support non-intel platforms, gcc 3 should be considered a must. If you get anywhere with 2.95.x on those platforms, you are really lucky.
I have only avoided it because of the code bloat relative to egcs-2.91.66. Not that we have upx a minor increase in the amount of space consumed should not be a major issue. I am already using binutils 2.12.90.0.9 so I am half way there.
Eric
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Steve M. Gehlbach wrote:
gcc 2.96 is not a real release, more of a redhat branch off the 3.0 dev tree that gnu disavows. There are notes somewhere about this but I couldn't quickly find the link. I would consider anything that 2.96 does or does not do, to be a laboratory curiosity. Can you compile a linux kernel with either 2.96 or 3.2?
I understand. But linuxbios has worked fine for several years on several platforms with several gcc versions. Something bad has happened in 3.2 which we'll have to figure out.
ron
-
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
Ronald G Minnich -
Stefan Reinauer -
Steve M. Gehlbach