Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- From: Kasper Dupont <kasperd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:55:57 +0100
Nix wrote:
>
> 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 That info is *grossly* outdated,
If you think so, then why not submit a patch?
The git history shows that file has been updated six times
in the last eight months. Though the part about gcc version
has not been modified.
> 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).
The documentation doesn't say it will not work. It just
says 2.95 is recommended because it is the best tested.
--
Kasper Dupont
Note to self: Don't try to allocate
256000 pages with GFP_KERNEL on x86.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- From: Nix
- Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- References:
- gcc and 2.6 kernel
- From: Bill Cunningham
- Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- From: Kasper Dupont
- Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- From: Nix
- gcc and 2.6 kernel
- Prev by Date: Re: Kernel stack size
- Next by Date: Re: Signals, sockets and Illegal Seeks...
- Previous by thread: Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- Next by thread: Re: gcc and 2.6 kernel
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
