From: John Moran (arronax at domain eircom.net)
Date: Sat 06 Jul 2002 - 00:16:09 IST
One thing RedHat neglect to mention is that GCC 2.96 is a development
tree, not a stable tree, and the GCC maintainers recommend that it not
be used on a production system, same as a development kernel shouldn't
be used on a production system.
However, you should only get problems if you're trying to copy the
binaries to a system compiled with a compiler with a different major or
minor version number, but not a patchlevel difference.
Also, as the link below says, you'll only have problems with C++ code,
which AFAIK, the kernel doesn't contain.
PS: according to the most recent kernel changes file, the supported
compilers for the kernel are 2.95.3, 2.95.4 (recommended), RedHat gcc
2.96-74 or later (less stable), gcc 3.0.x (may cause problems) - no
other compilers are known to work.
From: ilug-admin at domain linux.ie [mailto:ilug-admin at domain linux.ie] On Behalf Of
Sent: 05 July 2002 14:40
To: 'ilug at domain linux.ie'
Subject: RE: [ILUG] how does a gcc version effect the kernel build ?
[Here's a link on the supposedly-but-not-actually broken GCC shipped
with RedHat, which among other things gives you some nice tips about
correctly coding in C: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_gcc.html]
The question remains... why upgrade your compiler just to compile the
sources from an SRPM, perhaps I'm attempting feigned elitism, but is
that not like using an elephant gun for a mouse? Why not make life easy
and just get the kernel sources from ftp.kernel.org and apply any
patches you want to that source instead of upgrading the compiler on a
-- Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug at domain linux.ie http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information. List maintainer: listmaster at domain linux.ie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:17:42 GMT