From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from zombie.ncsc.mil (zombie.ncsc.mil [144.51.88.131]) by tycho.ncsc.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i72A4qrT010936 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 06:04:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (jazzdrum.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.7]) by zombie.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i72A4lKV005808 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:04:51 GMT Subject: Re: gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no From: Wolfgang Pfeiffer To: Russell Coker , SE-Linux In-Reply-To: <200408021810.51884.russell@coker.com.au> References: <1091383127.1295.283.camel@debby> <200408021810.51884.russell@coker.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1091441074.1295.361.camel@debby> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 12:04:35 +0200 Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 10:10, Russell Coker wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 03:58, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: > > Trying to build a SE-Linux dpkg package with gcc-2.95 and this script: > > > > ends like this: > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > checking for initscr in -lncurses... yes > > checking if TIOCNOTTY is defined in sys/ioctl.h... yes > > checking for va_copy... no > > checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no > > make: *** > > [/home/shorty/russellpackages/dpkg/dpkg-1.10.22/build/configure-stamp] > > Error 1 ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Trying to build the package with the mentioned script above plus gcc-3.3 > > or gcc-3.0 or gcc-3.4 each time successfully builds these packages: > > Why not just use the latest GCC? Because I thought it's a good idea to compile the SE-packages with the same gcc version as the one I will use to compile the kernel. And as, IINM, at least for Intel machines (I'm running ppc) gcc 2.95.3 still seems to be the recommended version to compile 2.6 kernels I'm using 2.95 for compiling other packages, too .. But I'm definitely not sure on all that. As to the sane ways to compile a kernel I have to rely on the docs I find on WWW, and those that come with the software packages: For instance explaining "some of the new functionality to be found in the 2.6 Linux kernel" [Excerpt]: ---------------------------------------------------- Compiler issues. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - The recommended compiler (for x86) is still 2.95.3. - When compiled with a modern gcc (Ie gcc 3.x), 2.6 will use additional optimisations that 2.4 didn't. This may shake out compiler bugs that 2.4 didn't expose. - Do not use gcc 3.0.x on x86 due to a stack pointer handling bug. - gcc 2.96 is not supported with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y due to a stack pointer handling bug. ---------------------------------------------------- I'll be happily using gcc-3.4 (this is the latest reliable gcc version: Is this correct?) for packages and kernels if someone tells me that nowadays this is as safe as 2.95. Thanks in anticipation if someone can shed some light on all that ... Best Regards Wolfgang -- Profile, links: http://profiles.yahoo.com/wolfgangpfeiffer -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.