Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- From: Nix <nix-razor-pit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:26:26 +0000
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Kasper Dupont whispered secretively:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> Which is the best gcc version to compile the 2.6 kernel with?
>
> Documentation/Changes
That info is *grossly* outdated, and outright wrong for numerous
architectures. In practice, for i386 and recent 2.6 kernels, any version
from 2.95 up to 4.0 is likely to work (skipping GCC 4.0.0 and 3.0.x
where x<4 because they had serious bugs which the kernel tripped).
For x86-64, GCC 3.4 and 4.0 (and the hammer branch of 3.3) are the only
GCCs you can expect to work.
For SPARC64, GCC 3.4 and above should work; GCC 3.2 and 3.3 might work;
and before that you have to use a horrible short-term hack dated 1997
whose name I forget (but I think the UltraLinux FAQ still refers to).
The requirements for other arches differ again.
Regardless, 3.4 seems to be a pretty safe bet right now.
--
`Don't confuse the shark with the remoras.' --- Rob Landley
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- From: Kasper Dupont
- Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- References:
- gcc and 2.6 kernel
- From: Bill Cunningham
- Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- From: Kasper Dupont
- gcc and 2.6 kernel
- Prev by Date: Re: /dev/fanout : A one-to-many multiplexer (beta)
- Next by Date: gcc-3.4.4
- Previous by thread: Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- Next by thread: Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|