From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mummy.ncsc.mil (mummy.ncsc.mil [144.51.88.129]) by tycho.ncsc.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i73BCurT019708 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (jazzhorn.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.9]) by mummy.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i73BCM6o007076 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:12:22 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: <200408022013.51748.russell@coker.com.au> References: <1091383127.1295.283.camel@debby> <200408021810.51884.russell@coker.com.au> <1091441074.1295.361.camel@debby> <200408022013.51748.russell@coker.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1091531568.1291.78.camel@debby> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:12:48 +0200 Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 12:13, Russell Coker wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:04, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: > > > 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. > > That's not necessary. Good to know ... :) > Using a different version of GCC for the kernel > shouldn't be a big deal (think of kgcc). > > > 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 .. > > gcc 3.3.4 is working well for me when I compile my i386 kernels. Good news for me. Thanks for letting me know > > > 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. > > 3.3.4 works well for me. I haven't tried 3.4 yet, but I will probably do so > soon. I'll probably try 3.4, but at least 3.3, for the packages and the 2.6 kernel ... but not being quite sure on gcc-3.4 yet. So the next steps will be building the packages, and then let's hope I could manage to find a place to offer them ... :) Thanks again 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.