From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:31:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:31:03 -0400 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:33050 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:30:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:30:43 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: root Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.5pre2aa1 panic during boot Message-ID: <20010520193043.B30738@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <3B07F7ED.7C22DAFD@nospam.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B07F7ED.7C22DAFD@nospam.com>; from root@nospam.com on Mon, May 21, 2001 at 01:59:25AM +0900 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 01:59:25AM +0900, root wrote: > Andrea told us that he will not care for anything > compiled with gcc-2.95 or version lower than that. I said I don't care about bugreport of alpha kernel crashes if the _alpha_ kernel was compiled with gcc 2.95.*. 2.95 is fine on the x86, but it's broken on the alpha. In short: x86 2.4 kernels -> use 2.95.[34] or egcs 1.1.2 (I use 2.95.4 from the gcc_2_95_branch of CVS) alpha 2.4 kernel -> use egcs 1.1.2 or 2.96 with some houndred of patches (I personally still use the egcs 1.1.2) > However, it seems that this kernel panic has anything > to do with gcc-2.95. Please try to reproduce with egcs 1.1.2 to be sure. > Anyway, gcc-2.95 is still the official release of gcc. > Even SuSE-7.1 has this version only. I wish SuSE puts x86 and alpha are completly different issues with regard to the compiler. I never heard of problems with 2.95.4 on x86 and I would never replace 2.95.4 from the gcc_2_95_branch for the latest 2.96 on my x86 boxes, I'd instead try again gcc 3.0 after the inline asm fixes for "+=" constranints on local variables are done. Andrea