From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Xavier Bru Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:41:52 +0000 Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] Back to the future: which gcc for kernel 2.4.18 ? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Hi Dave and Jim, Thanks for your answers. Unfortunately, I did not success in installing gcc 3.1 on the system. We are using a RedHat 7.2 distibution. gcc3-3.0.1-3 RPM is part of the distibution and provides a /usr/bin/gcc3 binary distinct from the /usr/bin/gcc binary provided by gcc-2.96-101 RPM. I downloaded: http://ftp.dulug.duke.edu/pub/redhat/linux/rawhide/ia64/RedHat/RPMS/gcc-3.1-6.ia64.rpm and tried to install with rpm command. I had to remove a lot of RPMs and got stuck with the message: rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 is needed by gcc-3.1-6 Is there a clean way to do that for an unexperimented gcc user, in particular, can we have a gcc3.1 like installation that allows keeping the gcc2.96 ? Thanks again for your help. Xavier Jim Wilson writes: > >Building kernel 2.4.18 for ia64 with gcc version 2.96 20000731 , it > >seems that there is some problem with code generation in the > >ia64_log_rec_header_print() routine that prints MCA informations: > >year appears to be 18002 :-) > >Looking at the code with gdb, it seems that the generated code uses > >the f6 register without ininitializing: > > I've tracked this down to a reload (register allocator) problem. It looks > to be very rare, and it looks like it is still present in current gcc sources. > However, I'm not sure about that at the moment, as there are many possible > solutions, and it is possible someone implemented a non-obvious one. I'm > continuing to look at this. I want to try to reproduce it with current gcc > sources before I try to fix it. > > >I tried using gcc3 (gcc version 3.0.2 20010905), but I get an internal > >compiler error when I build the kernel. > > I don't know what compiler you are refering to. That doesn't look like an FSF > version number, and I don't know of any Red Hat compiler release with that > version number. > > In any case, gcc 3.0 for IA-64 is not very interesting. It wasn't adopted by > anybody that I know of for various reasons, so it never got stress tested and > is unlikely to be reliable. Use gcc 3.1 instead. > > Jim