From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264113AbTDJR3U (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:29:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264115AbTDJR3U (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:29:20 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com ([204.127.202.63]:21953 "EHLO sccrmhc03.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264113AbTDJR3T (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:29:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3E95AF4F.20105@kegel.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:52:15 -0700 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313 X-Accept-Language: de-de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wd@denx.de, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: gcc-2.95 broken on PPC? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The Denkster wrote: >> However, bugs #1 (zlib.c) and #3 (div64.h) disappear if I compile >> my kernels with gcc-3.2.2 instead of 2.95.4, which is a strong >> indication that 2.95.4 is broken on PPC. Is this something that's > > This is speculation only. We use gcc-2.95.4 as part of our ELDK in > all of our projects, and a lot of people are using these tools, too. > We definitely see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers. Hi Wolfgang, when you say you see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers, what is x? I'd understand if you saw problems with gcc-3.0.*, but I had hoped that gcc-3.2.2 would compile good kernels for ppc. (Me, I'm still using Montavista Linux 2.0's gcc-2.95.3 to build my ppc kernels, but am looking for an excuse to switch to gcc-3.2.* or gcc-3.3.*.) - Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045