make in 2.6.x

make in 2.6.x

[Karel Kulhavý]

Hello

Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install"
or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?

Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?

Cl<

Re: make in 2.6.x

[Bas Mevissen]

Karel Kulhavý wrote:
> Hello
> 
> Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install"
> or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?

# make all modules_install install

Builds image and modules and installs them both. At least on Redhat, 
also an initial ram disk is created and grub is adapted.

> Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
> 

# make help

and read the top-level Makefile itself. It is a quite readable file format.

Regards,

Bas.

gcc 2.95.3

[Karel Kulhavý]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:00:35AM -0500, Jeremy Andrews wrote:
> > Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install"
> > or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?
> > 
> > Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
> 
> make help

Cool. I got to README :)

I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean
my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?

Cl<

Re: make in 2.6.x

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:50:48PM +0000, Karel Kulhavý wrote:
> Hello
> 
> Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install"
> or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?

It is today supported that you specify all targets in one line.
The preferred way to do this is to use:

make all modules_install

'all' will build bot default target and modules - and works across
all architectures.

> Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?

No, the top-level README could have included this, but does not so today.

	Sam

Re: make in 2.6.x

[Karel Kulhavý]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:00:35AM -0500, Jeremy Andrews wrote:
> > Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install"
> > or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?
> > 
> > Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
> 
> make help
> 
> Cheers,
>  -Jeremy

I have read make help and skimmed through README however what I learned is
that the sequence "make bzImage ; make modules ; make modules_install" is
correct, but found no approval or disapproval for
"make bzImage modules modules_install"

Cl<

Re: make in 2.6.x

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 16:20 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:50:48PM +0000, Karel Kulhavý wrote:
> > Hello
> > 
> > Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install"
> > or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?
> 
> It is today supported that you specify all targets in one line.

Last time I tried, there were bugs with 'make -j3 bzImage modules'. Is
that now fixed?

-- 
dwmw2

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[Daniel Andersen]

> I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean
> my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?

Please have a look at http://developer.osdl.org/cherry/compile/

It should work fine.

Daniel Andersen

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[Karel Kulhavý]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:01:23PM +0100, Daniel Andersen wrote:
> > I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean
> > my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?
> 
> Please have a look at http://developer.osdl.org/cherry/compile/

What if the kernel compiles cleanly but the generated code is invalid?
Or is gcc-3.2.2 BugFree(TM) (BugFree as in BugFree speech, not as
in BugFree beer)?

Cl<

Re: make in 2.6.x

[Wakko Warner]

> Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install"
> or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?
> 
> Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?

I see nothing wrong with the first invocation, the second you should change
the ; to &&.  if make bzImage fails, it'll stop there.

I typically do all seperate like this:
make -j 20 bzImage && make -j 20 modules && make -j modules_install

Sometimes it doesn't complete, not sure why.

-- 
 Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[Matthew Reppert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 960 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 10:30, Karel Kulhavý wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:01:23PM +0100, Daniel Andersen wrote:
> > > I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean
> > > my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?
> > 
> > Please have a look at http://developer.osdl.org/cherry/compile/
> 
> What if the kernel compiles cleanly but the generated code is invalid?
> Or is gcc-3.2.2 BugFree(TM) (BugFree as in BugFree speech, not as
> in BugFree beer)?

Many people have been using gcc-3.2 or later to build kernels, and I
haven't really heard of any problems with this, at least on i386. I
personally have used 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 (well, with Debian's patches) and
haven't had any weirdness with 2.6 or 2.4. ISTR there being arches that
need 3.x to compile, but I could be mistaken.

2.95.3 is definitely the *oldest* compiler you'd want to use, and pretty
much skip between that and 3.2.

Matt

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 16:13, Karel Kulhavý wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:00:35AM -0500, Jeremy Andrews wrote:
> > > Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install"
> > > or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?
> > > 
> > > Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
> > 
> > make help
> 
> Cool. I got to README :)
> 
> I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean
> my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?

I've been compiling 2.5 and 2.6 kernels since gcc 3.3 with no problems.
In fact, there are patches on the -mm tree to help compiling with gcc
3.4 and 3.5.

I think the Documentation is a little bit updated ;-)

Re: make in 2.6.x

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:42:24PM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install"
> > or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?
> > 
> > Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
> 
> I see nothing wrong with the first invocation, the second you should change
> the ; to &&.  if make bzImage fails, it'll stop there.
> 
> I typically do all seperate like this:
> make -j 20 bzImage && make -j 20 modules && make -j modules_install
> 
> Sometimes it doesn't complete, not sure why.

Could you please enable verbose output, and send me a private mail with
the log when it fails.

Maybe I can dig out why it fails.
I'm sitting on UP here, so i usually never tries with -jN
where N > 2.

make V=1 -j20 && make V=1 -j20 modules && make V=1 -j20 modules_install

	Sam

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[Stef van der Made]

Matthew Reppert wrote:

>snip
>  
>

>Many people have been using gcc-3.2 or later to build kernels, and I
>haven't really heard of any problems with this, at least on i386. I
>personally have used 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 (well, with Debian's patches) and
>haven't had any weirdness with 2.6 or 2.4. ISTR there being arches that
>need 3.x to compile, but I could be mistaken.
>
>2.95.3 is definitely the *oldest* compiler you'd want to use, and pretty
>much skip between that and 3.2.
>
>Matt
>  
>
Same here. I've been using gcc3.2.0 and beyond currently 3.3.2 since the 
day they were released and never had any big issues. I would recomend 
using gcc 3.3.2 since it improves performance when using optimizations 
quite a bit as far as I can remember the statistics.

Stef

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[Russell King]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:20:02AM +0100, Stef van der Made wrote:
> Same here. I've been using gcc3.2.0 and beyond currently 3.3.2 since the 
> day they were released and never had any big issues. I would recomend 
> using gcc 3.3.2 since it improves performance when using optimizations 
> quite a bit as far as I can remember the statistics.

On ARM at least, gcc 3.2.x seems buggy.  It's along the lines of this:

 3.2.0: incorrect function argument offset calculation.
 3.2.x: miscompiles NEW_AUX_ENT in fs/binfmt_elf.c
        (http://gcc.gnu.org/PR8896) and incorrect structure
        initialisation in fs/jffs2/erase.c

I suspect that the fs/jffs2/erase.c problem is not ARM-specific, though
I'm no compiler expert.

However, gcc 3.3 seems table on ARM, and I'm not aware of any problems
with any further 3.3.x releases.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 PCMCIA      - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
                 2.6 Serial core

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[Ingo Buescher]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Stef van der Made wrote:

> Matthew Reppert wrote:
> Same here. I've been using gcc3.2.0 and beyond currently 3.3.2 since the
> day they were released and never had any big issues. I would recomend
> using gcc 3.3.2 since it improves performance when using optimizations
> quite a bit as far as I can remember the statistics.
>


> Stef

Well, according to this list, gcc-3.3.2 at least has problems to compile
ALSA correctly, unless you activate framepointer support.

IB
-- 
"For every government X there is at least one government Y such that X
would claim that Y is a bunch of corrupt assholes.  Since every government
is  a bunch of corrupt assholes, every government is right at least in
one of its claims." -- Al Viro discussing politics on lkml

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[Stef van der Made]

Ingo Buescher wrote:

>snip
>
>Well, according to this list, gcc-3.3.2 at least has problems to compile
>ALSA correctly, unless you activate framepointer support.
>
>IB
>  
>
I don't seem to have any issues using ALSA since kernel 2.6.1 and gcc 
3.3.2. I'm using an soundblaster live emu10k. I did have issues before 
this kernel version and had to use OSS emulation. btw I'm using x86 
(Athlon K7)

Cheers,

Stef

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[Florian Weimer]

Karel Kulhavý wrote:

> Cool. I got to README :)
> 
> I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean
> my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?

AFAIK, the README is woefully out of date.

Re: gcc 2.95.3

[David Woodhouse]

On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 00:48 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> I suspect that the fs/jffs2/erase.c problem is not ARM-specific, though
> I'm no compiler expert.

I think it's been seen on MIPS too.

-- 
dwmw2