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 i72AESrT010979 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 06:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.sws.net.au (jazzdrum.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.7]) by zombie.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i72AEPKV005992 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:14:26 GMT From: Russell Coker Reply-To: russell@coker.com.au To: Wolfgang Pfeiffer Subject: Re: gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:13:51 +1000 Cc: SE-Linux References: <1091383127.1295.283.camel@debby> <200408021810.51884.russell@coker.com.au> <1091441074.1295.361.camel@debby> In-Reply-To: <1091441074.1295.361.camel@debby> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200408022013.51748.russell@coker.com.au> Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov 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. 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. > 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. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- 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.