Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Wayne.Brown]

A number of people have pointed out to me that egcs-1.1.2 is weak on C++
support.  Rather than clutter up the list by replying to all of them, I've
picked this one to say "Thank you" to everyone who responded.  I'm not a C++
programmer, so I tend to forget about it and think of gcc as just a C compiler.
Now this discussion makes more sense to me.

I agree that if there is going to be a separate compiler for the kernel, the
Makefiles should be flexible enough to allow the user to plug in whatever
compiler he or she prefers to use.

Wayne




"J . A . Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es> on 11/02/2000 06:40:58 AM

To:   Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec
cc:   linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Subject:  Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?




On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:46:04 Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:
>
>
> I've been following this kgcc discussion with interest for weeks now and
> there's
> one thing that still puzzles me.  Everyone on both sides of the issue seems to
> be saying that kgcc (AKA egcs 1.1.2) is used because the gcc versions shipped
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wrong assumption. The idea is if I need a way to set a compiler for kernel
that is not the same compiler as the system wide one. Should kernel Makefiles
use gcc (hardcoded) (and people must have a 'gcc' that works for kernel), or
let kernel use something called 'kgcc', and let user decide if in his machine
kgcc is 2.7, egcs or 2.95.2.

> by
> several vendors don't compile the kernel correctly.  What I haven't seen yet
> is
> an explanation of why kgcc can't be used for compiling *everything* and why
> another compiler even needs to be installed.

Because gcc is not only the C compiler, is the full compiler system.
The support for C++ in 2.95 has nothing to do with egcs. And 2.95 supports
java, for example.
And the libraries. The C++ standard library is much better in 2.95 that in
egcs.


--
Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta                          mailto:jamagallon@able.es

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/





-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Wayne.Brown]

I've been following this kgcc discussion with interest for weeks now and there's
one thing that still puzzles me.  Everyone on both sides of the issue seems to
be saying that kgcc (AKA egcs 1.1.2) is used because the gcc versions shipped by
several vendors don't compile the kernel correctly.  What I haven't seen yet is
an explanation of why kgcc can't be used for compiling *everything* and why
another compiler even needs to be installed.  I'm using egcs-1.1.2 with the
latest kernel, binutils, modutils, etc. as well as applications like the latest
ppp and setiathome with no problems.  Instead of using two compilers, why not
stay with the older version for everything and not use the latest gcc for
anything until both the kernel and userland stuff can be compiled with it?

I'm not trying to fan the flames, just wondering why there's such an apparent
rush to upgrade to a newer gcc.  Everyone seems to be taking it for granted that
an upgrade is needed, but there's disagreement on which version to use.  Why do
we need to upgrade the compiler at all right now?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jeff Garzik]

Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:
> What I haven't seen yet is
> an explanation of why kgcc can't be used for compiling *everything*

It can.  But if we are talking about 2.4.x, I want my kernel built with
the improved gcc-2.95.2 -- unless there is a good reason not to do so --
and kgcc is egcs-1.1.2 not gcc-2.95.2 on my system.

> and why
> another compiler even needs to be installed.

Cuz the kernel should not dictate the compiler choice for the entire
distro.

-- 
Jeff Garzik             | "Mind if I drive?"  -Sam
Building 1024           | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the
MandrakeSoft            |  dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
                        |                     -Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Alan Cox]

> ppp and setiathome with no problems.  Instead of using two compilers, why not
> stay with the older version for everything and not use the latest gcc for
> anything until both the kernel and userland stuff can be compiled with it?

egcs-1.1.2 is a reasonable C compiler. It makes a few errors under register
pressure and stuff. However its at best 'a C++ subset compiler'. 2.95 is a
fair bit better.

Most of these problems are also not the compiler but applications. gcc 2.95 
broke a lot of asm using code because the apps were wrong. Without the pain
they would simply never get fixed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[J . A . Magallon]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 06:46:04 Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote:
> 
> 
> I've been following this kgcc discussion with interest for weeks now and
> there's
> one thing that still puzzles me.  Everyone on both sides of the issue seems to
> be saying that kgcc (AKA egcs 1.1.2) is used because the gcc versions shipped
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wrong assumption. The idea is if I need a way to set a compiler for kernel
that is not the same compiler as the system wide one. Should kernel Makefiles
use gcc (hardcoded) (and people must have a 'gcc' that works for kernel), or
let kernel use something called 'kgcc', and let user decide if in his machine
kgcc is 2.7, egcs or 2.95.2.

> by
> several vendors don't compile the kernel correctly.  What I haven't seen yet
> is
> an explanation of why kgcc can't be used for compiling *everything* and why
> another compiler even needs to be installed.

Because gcc is not only the C compiler, is the full compiler system.
The support for C++ in 2.95 has nothing to do with egcs. And 2.95 supports
java, for example.
And the libraries. The C++ standard library is much better in 2.95 that in
egcs.


-- 
Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta                          mailto:jamagallon@able.es

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[J . A . Magallon]

I have noticed that in latest patch for 2.4.0, the global Makefile
no more tries to find a kgcc, and falls back to gcc.
I suppose because 2.7.2.3 is no more good for kernel, but still you
can use 2.91, 2.95.2 or 2.96(??). Is that a patch that leaked in
the way to test10, or is for another reason ?.

TIA

-- 
Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta                          mailto:jamagallon@able.es

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Alan Cox]

> I have noticed that in latest patch for 2.4.0, the global Makefile
> no more tries to find a kgcc, and falls back to gcc.
> I suppose because 2.7.2.3 is no more good for kernel, but still you
> can use 2.91, 2.95.2 or 2.96(??). Is that a patch that leaked in
> the way to test10, or is for another reason ?.

I've not yet submitted it to Linus is the obvious reason 8)

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jeff Garzik]

Alan Cox wrote:
> J. A. Magallon wrote:
> > I have noticed that in latest patch for 2.4.0, the global Makefile
> > no more tries to find a kgcc, and falls back to gcc.

The global Makefile in 2.4.x -never- looked for kgcc.


> > I suppose because 2.7.2.3 is no more good for kernel, but still you
> > can use 2.91, 2.95.2 or 2.96(??). Is that a patch that leaked in
> > the way to test10, or is for another reason ?.
> 
> I've not yet submitted it to Linus is the obvious reason 8)

You're not changing 2.4.x to use kgcc, are you?  It seems to be working
fine under gcc 2.95.2+fixes...

	Jeff



-- 
Jeff Garzik             | "Mind if I drive?"  -Sam
Building 1024           | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the
MandrakeSoft            |  dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
                        |                     -Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[J . A . Magallon]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:12:31 Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> 
> You're not changing 2.4.x to use kgcc, are you?  It seems to be working
> fine under gcc 2.95.2+fixes...
> 

What means "using kgcc" ?. I think it should be done even before.
It is not using "egcs" as you seem to be thinking. You cant put your
preferred compiler in kgcc.
Even I think it could include some general options for all the kernel build.

Think of packages like ALSA drivers grepping or analizing the kernel Makefile
to find that options are -fomit-frame-pointer -malign=xxxx and so on.
And that options can change from version to version of gcc. 
Simpler: build a script (what kgcc is). An external module package, use kgcc.

-- 
Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta                          mailto:jamagallon@able.es

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jeff Garzik]

"J . A . Magallon" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:12:31 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>
> > You're not changing 2.4.x to use kgcc, are you?  It seems to be working
> > fine under gcc 2.95.2+fixes...
> >
> 
> What means "using kgcc" ?

Alan has a script in 2.2.x which attempts to find the best compiler for
building your kernel.  It looks for kgcc first, IIRC.

Alan's message wasn't clear, but it seemed to imply that a patch to add
this script to 2.4.x would be submitted to Linus.  gcc 2.95.2 is a bit
smarter about some things, and I definitely prefer using that compiler. 
I also prefer fixing 2.4.x kernel<->compiler bugs rather than defaulting
people to an older compiler.


> Think of packages like ALSA drivers grepping or analizing the kernel Makefile
> to find that options are -fomit-frame-pointer -malign=xxxx and so on.
> And that options can change from version to version of gcc.
> Simpler: build a script (what kgcc is). An external module package, use kgcc.

This is a totally separate issue.  Choice of compiler is but one of many
variables.  We need the build system to export all these variables, and
ALSA and other external packages will then pick up those settings for
use in their own builds.  See for example
http://gtf.org/garzik/kernel/files/patches/2.4/2.4.0-test9/external-modules-2.4.0.9.8.patch.gz

	Jeff

-- 
Jeff Garzik             | "Mind if I drive?"  -Sam
Building 1024           | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the
MandrakeSoft            |  dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
                        |                     -Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Alan Cox]

> Alan's message wasn't clear, but it seemed to imply that a patch to add
> this script to 2.4.x would be submitted to Linus.  gcc 2.95.2 is a bit
> smarter about some things, and I definitely prefer using that compiler. 
> I also prefer fixing 2.4.x kernel<->compiler bugs rather than defaulting
> people to an older compiler.

I haven't submitted it. Im happy to do so if people want it in.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Kurt Garloff]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:40:58PM +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> I have noticed that in latest patch for 2.4.0, the global Makefile
> no more tries to find a kgcc, and falls back to gcc.
> I suppose because 2.7.2.3 is no more good for kernel, but still you
> can use 2.91, 2.95.2 or 2.96(??). Is that a patch that leaked in
> the way to test10, or is for another reason ?.

kgcc is a redhat'ism. They invented this package because their 2.96 fails
compiling a stable kernel.
However, it's not a good idea to dist specific code into the official kernel
tree.

Regards,
-- 
Kurt Garloff                <kurt@garloff.de>            [Eindhoven, NL]
Physics: Plasma simulations <k.garloff@phys.tue.nl>   [TU Eindhoven, NL]
  (See mail header or public key servers for RSA and DSA public keys.)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[David S. Miller]

   Date: 	Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:57:34 +0100
   From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>

   kgcc is a redhat'ism.

Debian has it too.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Gérard Roudier]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, David S. Miller wrote:

>    Date: 	Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:57:34 +0100
>    From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>
> 
>    kgcc is a redhat'ism.
> 
> Debian has it too.

If it has such (I don't know), then their own kgcc does not seem to have
confused users.

This let me propose to fix the above comments as follows:

        The kgcc mess is a redhat-7'ism.

May-be, the kgcc thing is not a bad idea (I would obviously prefer to use
a single gcc release on a given system), but, as it is presented in redhat
7.0, it looks like a show-stopper given all that have been reported about.
A red dune's cap redhat should deserve for this one, in my opinion. ;-)

  Gérard.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Ben Pfaff]

"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> writes:

>    Date: 	Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:57:34 +0100
>    From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>
> 
>    kgcc is a redhat'ism.
> 
> Debian has it too.

No, it uses the name gcc272:

blp:~(0)$ kgcc
bash: kgcc: command not found
blp:~(127)$ gcc272
gcc272: No input files
blp:~(1)$ cat /etc/debian_version 
woody
blp:~(0)$ 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[David S. Miller]

   From: Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@msu.edu>
   Date: 01 Nov 2000 18:07:53 -0500

   "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> writes:

   > Debian has it too.

   No, it uses the name gcc272:

I meant using a special compiler for kernel builds as opposed to
everything else.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Alan Cox]

>    kgcc is a redhat'ism.
> Debian has it too.

and conectiva

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jeff Garzik]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> >    kgcc is a redhat'ism.
> > Debian has it too.
> 
> and conectiva

And Mandrake, as of our recent 7.2 release.  </me too>

	Jeff




-- 
Jeff Garzik             | "Mind if I drive?"  -Sam
Building 1024           | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the
MandrakeSoft            |  dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
                        |                     -Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:47:21PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>    Date: 	Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:57:34 +0100
>    From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>
> 
>    kgcc is a redhat'ism.
> 
> Debian has it too.

Yes, but what's more important is that all of these "kgcc" variants are
gcc 2.7.2.x-based (unless there's one I don't know about).  And we don't want
2.7.2.x, we want egcs 1.1.2 or newer (but not gcc 2.9x, unless you know what
you're doing and are trying to fix the compiler. :)).

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Alan Cox]

> Yes, but what's more important is that all of these "kgcc" variants are
> gcc 2.7.2.x-based (unless there's one I don't know about).  And we don't want
> 2.7.2.x, we want egcs 1.1.2 or newer (but not gcc 2.9x, unless you know what
> you're doing and are trying to fix the compiler. :)).

Conectiva kgcc is egcs 1.1.2
Red Hat kgcc is egcs 1.1.2
Mandrake kgcc I believe is egcs 1.1.2

Debian gcc272 is gcc272

So the subset checking for kgcc is fine

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:30:50PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Yes, but what's more important is that all of these "kgcc" variants are
> > gcc 2.7.2.x-based (unless there's one I don't know about).  And we don't want
> > 2.7.2.x, we want egcs 1.1.2 or newer (but not gcc 2.9x, unless you know what
> > you're doing and are trying to fix the compiler. :)).
> 
> Conectiva kgcc is egcs 1.1.2
> Red Hat kgcc is egcs 1.1.2
> Mandrake kgcc I believe is egcs 1.1.2

heh, ok.  i'm wrong. :)

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jeff Garzik]

Alan Cox wrote:
> Mandrake kgcc I believe is egcs 1.1.2

Correct...

Though Richard Henderson's message recent about 'gcc -V ...' not doing
the right thing has me worried...  egcs 1.1.2 not gcc 2.95.2 is
definitely being called when '/usr/bin/kgcc' is executed, but I'm still
worried that some details might be getting lost... 
http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/2000week44/1069.html

-- 
Jeff Garzik             | "Mind if I drive?"  -Sam
Building 1024           | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the
MandrakeSoft            |  dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
                        |                     -Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Mike Galbraith]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Alan Cox wrote:
> > Mandrake kgcc I believe is egcs 1.1.2
> 
> Correct...
> 
> Though Richard Henderson's message recent about 'gcc -V ...' not doing
> the right thing has me worried...  egcs 1.1.2 not gcc 2.95.2 is
> definitely being called when '/usr/bin/kgcc' is executed, but I'm still
> worried that some details might be getting lost... 
> http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/2000week44/1069.html

It's best to use a seperate driver for each compiler.  I don't know of
any other way it can bite you, but one way is if you if you have drivers
built with different arch names trying to call the right compiler innards
with -V.  You also need -b archname for it to get it right.

[root]:# gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-linux-gnu/gcc-2.95.2/specs
gcc version gcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release)
[root]:# gcc -V 2.8.1 -v
Using builtin specs.  <== danger Will Robinson. (think about includes etc)
gcc driver version gcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release) executing gcc version 2.8.1
[root]:# gcc -V 2.8.1 -b i486-linux-gnu -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux-gnu/2.8.1/specs
gcc driver version gcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release) executing gcc version 2.8.1

I always diddle Makefile.in to build/install the driver with a non gcc
name for this reason.  Each driver knows where it's innards lives without
needing to be told (and risking me accidentally telling it lies:)

	-Mike

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jeff Garzik]

Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [root]:# gcc -v
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-linux-gnu/gcc-2.95.2/specs
> gcc version gcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release)
> [root]:# gcc -V 2.8.1 -v
> Using builtin specs.  <== danger Will Robinson. (think about includes etc)
> gcc driver version gcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release) executing gcc version 2.8.1
> [root]:# gcc -V 2.8.1 -b i486-linux-gnu -v
> Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux-gnu/2.8.1/specs
> gcc driver version gcc-2.95.2 19991024 (release) executing gcc version 2.8.1

Cool, looks like we are ok:

[jgarzik@rum linux_2_4]$ kgcc -v
Reading specs from
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs
gcc driver version 2.95.3 19991030 (prerelease) executing gcc version
egcs-2.91.66

Thanks,

	Jeff


-- 
Jeff Garzik             | "Mind if I drive?"  -Sam
Building 1024           | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the
MandrakeSoft            |  dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
                        |                     -Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Nathan Paul Simons]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:47:21PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>    kgcc is a redhat'ism.
> 
> Debian has it too.

        Debian doesn't have a kgcc, it's a gcc272, which is described as
follows:

"This is the old version of the GNU C compiler's C part. It should only be
used for backward compatibility purposes."

        i don't have the gcc272 package installed under Debian, and i use the
standard compiler that comes with Debian (2.95.2) and it works fine on Intel
and Alpha for compiling 2.4 and 2.2, so there :P

<rant mode="flame">
	This whole stupid 'kgcc' thing is yet another in a long line of really
dumb things that RedHat has done and it's just another reason i'm glad i
switched from RedHat to Debian.
<rant mode="off">

-- 
Nathan Paul Simons, Junior Software Engineer for FSMLabs
http://www.fsmlabs.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[David S. Miller]

   Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:37:52 -0700
   From: Nathan Paul Simons <npsimons@fsmlabs.com>

	   This whole stupid 'kgcc' thing is yet another in a long
   line of really dumb things that RedHat has done and it's just
   another reason i'm glad i switched from RedHat to Debian.

Please get your facts straight.

The rest of this thread will show you that this is not a "Red Hat
thing".  Connectiva, Mandrake, and others do the same thing.  In fact
we choose the name "kgcc" to match the convention set by these other
distributions.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Cort Dougan]

}    Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:37:52 -0700
}    From: Nathan Paul Simons <npsimons@fsmlabs.com>
} 
} 	   This whole stupid 'kgcc' thing is yet another in a long
}    line of really dumb things that RedHat has done and it's just
}    another reason i'm glad i switched from RedHat to Debian.
} 
} Please get your facts straight.
} 
} The rest of this thread will show you that this is not a "Red Hat
} thing".  Connectiva, Mandrake, and others do the same thing.  In fact
} we choose the name "kgcc" to match the convention set by these other
} distributions.

Good to see RedHat isn't a trail-blazer of ingenuity and will follow the
herd off the cliff.  I'm "kgcc" agnostic, but your argument is weak.

Since you're setting yourself up as a proponent of this can you explain why
RedHat includes a compiler that doesn't work with the kernel?  Don't get
grumpy about who did it first or what the old one is named but be clear
what I'm asking.  I want to know if the 'gcc' on RedHat 7.0 fixes some
problems that the older compilers suffered from?  If there's a good reason
for the new compiler that breaks with the kernel then great, it makes
sense.  If it wasn't needed, then it's incredibly stupid.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[David S. Miller]

   Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:54:18 -0700
   From: Cort Dougan <cort@fsmlabs.com>

   Since you're setting yourself up as a proponent of this can you
   explain why RedHat includes a compiler that doesn't work with the
   kernel?

Because the kernel is buggy (the specifics of this has been discussed
before on this list) and we didn't have time to implement and QA the
changes needed in time for the 7.0 release.

Furthermore I was correcting Nathan's statement that this was a "Red
Hat thing", not specifically upholding the virtues of using a
different compiler for the kernel.  That is a completely seperate
topic and we've had that taken that conversation as far as it will go
already remember? :-)

Finally, if I were to state "fsmlabs are a bunch of pinheads because
they did XXX" I would expect you to defend your employer as well if I
misrepresented them due to incorrect statements.  Right?  :-)

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Cort Dougan]

} before on this list) and we didn't have time to implement and QA the

Oh, my.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Alan Cox]

> } before on this list) and we didn't have time to implement and QA the
> 
> Oh, my.

Doing the QA on a kernel change of compiler is a long hard process. It took
until 2.2.17 to apparently get a 2.2 kernel solid with gcc 2.95.

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Nathan Paul Simons]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:45:24PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> Finally, if I were to state "fsmlabs are a bunch of pinheads because
> they did XXX" I would expect you to defend your employer as well if I
> misrepresented them due to incorrect statements.  Right?  :-)

Dave,
	i meant no personal affront to yourself or RedHat; i just thought i'd
let you know why myself (and i'm sure many others) don't use your distro 
anymore.  i did label that little comment with a "<rant mode="flame">", now
didn't i? ;)
	BTW, if someone did say we were a bunch of pinheads, i'm sure we would
listen and ask "why?" then try to fix what was making us pinheads, not just
dismiss it by saying, "oh, everyone else is a pinhead too".

-- 
Nathan Paul Simons, Junior Software Engineer for FSMLabs
http://www.fsmlabs.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[David S. Miller]

   X-Coding-System: undecided-unix
   Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:21:00 -0700
   From: Nathan Paul Simons <npsimons@fsmlabs.com>

	   i meant no personal affront to yourself or RedHat; i just
   thought i'd let you know why myself (and i'm sure many others)
   don't use your distro anymore.  i did label that little comment
   with a "<rant mode="flame">", now didn't i? ;)

One is allowed to flame only if they get their facts
straight :-)

	   BTW, if someone did say we were a bunch of pinheads, i'm
   sure we would listen and ask "why?" then try to fix what was making
   us pinheads, not just dismiss it by saying, "oh, everyone else is a
   pinhead too".

We already know we are a bunch of pinheads wrt. the userland compiler
issue, full stop.  It need not be restated several hundred more times.
Believe me, after such a large fiasco, we have listened :-)

But, on the other hand, to say that "kgcc" comceptually is something
only Red Hat has ever done is a factual error, that is all I am trying
to state, nothing more.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <200011020011.QAA20585@pizda.ninka.net>
By author:    "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> We already know we are a bunch of pinheads wrt. the userland compiler
> issue, full stop.  It need not be restated several hundred more times.
> Believe me, after such a large fiasco, we have listened :-)
> 
> But, on the other hand, to say that "kgcc" comceptually is something
> only Red Hat has ever done is a factual error, that is all I am trying
> to state, nothing more.
> 

I think at least supporting a "kgcc" compiler makes sense,
conceptually (although it probably should have been called "kcc", but
it's too late now.)

The kernel uses a lot of gcc extensions, and history shows that these
extensions aren't as stable as the compiler system as a whole.

	-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Bill Nottingham]

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com) said: 
> I think at least supporting a "kgcc" compiler makes sense,
> conceptually (although it probably should have been called "kcc", but
> it's too late now.)

There was already some userland package named kcc, with a kcc
binary. A Kanji converter of some sort, IIRC.

Bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Marc Lehmann]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:45:24PM -0800, "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
>    explain why RedHat includes a compiler that doesn't work with the
> 
> Because the kernel is buggy (the specifics of this has been discussed

But redhat's compiler is much, much buggier, as has been discussed here
as well. Actually, redhat's gcc branch fails to compile a large amount of
userspace applications that aren't buggy.

I thought redhat already agreed that they made a bad decision in many
regards and the real reason for having the compiler was mere policy of not
switching the compiler duing a major release, and rehdat wanted to have a
newer compiler in any case.

...

> they did XXX" I would expect you to defend your employer as well if I
> misrepresented them due to incorrect statements.  Right?  :-)

Sometimes one just keeps quiet, and that's o.k.

-- 
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg@opengroup.org |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Gérard Roudier]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, David S. Miller wrote:

>    Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:54:18 -0700
>    From: Cort Dougan <cort@fsmlabs.com>
> 
>    Since you're setting yourself up as a proponent of this can you
>    explain why RedHat includes a compiler that doesn't work with the
>    kernel?
> 
> Because the kernel is buggy (the specifics of this has been discussed

Every software seems to be buggy and gcc does not seem to be better than 
the kernel in this area.

> before on this list) and we didn't have time to implement and QA the
> changes needed in time for the 7.0 release.
> 
> Furthermore I was correcting Nathan's statement that this was a "Red
> Hat thing", not specifically upholding the virtues of using a
> different compiler for the kernel.  That is a completely seperate
> topic and we've had that taken that conversation as far as it will go
> already remember? :-)

You were just claiming that other main Linux packagers do also suggest a
different compiler version for the kernel, which was only part of the
facts that let RedHat 7 have been loose with its kgcc/gcc mess.

And since it seems that everybody can build a Linux based package in his 
garage and then find morons to buy it, let me ask my mother-in-law if 
she also did so and let the planet know how she decide to handle the
kernel compiler issue, if this can let you feel better. :o)

> Finally, if I were to state "fsmlabs are a bunch of pinheads because
> they did XXX" I would expect you to defend your employer as well if I
> misrepresented them due to incorrect statements.  Right?  :-)

Wrong, as far as it is David S. Miller who is one of the greatest Linux 
contributors that made Linux become what it is nowadays, mostly as a free
contributors for years.

I would even accept something like "you caring about your stock-options
not to be victimized by RH7 kgcc blundering", but certainly not that you
just want to blindly defend your employer for corporate reasons.

Regards,
  Gérard.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[David S. Miller]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1207 bytes --]

   Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:24:27 +0100 (CET)
   From: Gérard Roudier <groudier@club-internet.fr>

   > Finally, if I were to state "fsmlabs are a bunch of pinheads because
   > they did XXX" I would expect you to defend your employer as well if I
   > misrepresented them due to incorrect statements.  Right?  :-)

   Wrong, as far as it is David S. Miller who is one of the greatest Linux 
   contributors that made Linux become what it is nowadays, mostly as a free
   contributors for years.

Gerard, please replace "employer" in my words above with "group who
you believe in" (for me, such an example would be the SparcLinux
project) and you will arrive at the true gist of my statements.

I will defend anyone in the Linux community who is being wronged and
who I believe in.  It is not a gift specific to the company I work
for.  I would bestow it even upon one of my ex-employers, it does not
matter.  I don't think I have become as cold blooded as you would make
me out to be :-)

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 04:54:18PM -0700, Cort Dougan wrote:
> Since you're setting yourself up as a proponent of this can you explain why
> RedHat includes a compiler that doesn't work with the kernel?  Don't get

It actually does not compile only 2.2 kernels unless they are patched (the
patches so that they can work with gcc we ship are available from H.J.'s
site).
With 2.4, the gcc we shipped just prints some wrong cpp warnings (which have
been fixed long time ago) but compiles a workable kernel.
The thing then is really about what is the recommended compiler for
compiling kernel, and it is egcs 1.1.2 at the moment, not 2.95.2, nor our
2.96, nor CVS head (the last one is known to miscompile some things in the
kernel on x86).

> grumpy about who did it first or what the old one is named but be clear
> what I'm asking.  I want to know if the 'gcc' on RedHat 7.0 fixes some
> problems that the older compilers suffered from?  If there's a good reason

Yes, it fixes several problems the older compilers suffered from, see Richard
Henderson's posting about this on lkml from end of September.

	Jakub
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Nathan Paul Simons]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:29:15PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> Please get your facts straight.
> 
> The rest of this thread will show you that this is not a "Red Hat
> thing".  Connectiva, Mandrake, and others do the same thing.  In fact
> we choose the name "kgcc" to match the convention set by these other
> distributions.

	So other distro's did it too.  Why did nobody complain till RedHat
did it?  Because no one else decided to use, as the default, a bleeding edge 
compiler that not only won't compile the kernel but won't even touch a lot of 
userspace code either.

-- 
Nathan Paul Simons, Junior Software Engineer for FSMLabs
http://www.fsmlabs.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[David S. Miller]

   Date: 	Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:11:58 -0700
   From: Nathan Paul Simons <npsimons@fsmlabs.com>

	   So other distro's did it too.  Why did nobody complain till
   RedHat did it?  Because no one else decided to use, as the default,
   a bleeding edge compiler that not only won't compile the kernel but
   won't even touch a lot of userspace code either.

The topic is this thread is whether "kgcc" as a seperate compiler for
the kernel is a "Red Hat thing".  You stated that it is, I am showing
you how it isn't.  Please don't change the topic.

Red Hat's selection of it's userland compiler is an entirely different
topic and there have probably been a few hundred seperate flame wars
on this matter.  Such a discussion does not belong here on the kernel
list.  FWIW, I will be one of the first people to say that there were
some errors of judgment in the decision making that went on there.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:11:58PM -0700, Nathan Paul Simons wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:29:15PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Please get your facts straight.
> > 
> > The rest of this thread will show you that this is not a "Red Hat
> > thing".  Connectiva, Mandrake, and others do the same thing.  In fact
> > we choose the name "kgcc" to match the convention set by these other
> > distributions.
> 
> 	So other distro's did it too.  Why did nobody complain till RedHat
> did it?  Because no one else decided to use, as the default, a bleeding edge 
> compiler that not only won't compile the kernel but won't even touch a lot of 
> userspace code either.

That's not quite true.  gcc 2.96/7 isn't bad.  It's just not intended for use
on production systems.  But, it has a lot of things that people will have to
get used to for gcc 3.0.  It also has a more robust/not-as-sucky C++ abi.
RedHat decided haveing a g++ that sucks less and including more compat
libraries in 7.1/whatever was worth it.  I don't think so, but I'm not RedHat
:)

The idea of kgcc isn't a new one.  It's been around, unoffically, since Linus
said "Ok, I'd recommend people use X compiler".  It's now a more formal idea
and most x86 distributions have one now.
/me is glad he has more PPC boxes then x86 ones.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jeff Garzik]

Nathan Paul Simons wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:29:15PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Please get your facts straight.
> >
> > The rest of this thread will show you that this is not a "Red Hat
> > thing".  Connectiva, Mandrake, and others do the same thing.  In fact
> > we choose the name "kgcc" to match the convention set by these other
> > distributions.
> 
>         So other distro's did it too.  Why did nobody complain till RedHat
> did it?  Because no one else decided to use, as the default, a bleeding edge
> compiler that not only won't compile the kernel but won't even touch a lot of
> userspace code either.

Look, if you have an axe to grind about RedHat, do it somewhere else.

If you are wondering why there is one compiler to build the kernel and
one compiler to build everything else, for Mandrake at least, the reason
is stability.  We never had problems with gcc 2.95.2+fixes for userland,
but there are isolated kernel cases in 2.2.x which still give us
problems.  Therefore, our standard kernel is built with egcs 1.1.2, and
we provide that compiler to our users so they can avoid the same
problems.

	Jeff


-- 
Jeff Garzik             | "Mind if I drive?"  -Sam
Building 1024           | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the
MandrakeSoft            |  dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
                        |                     -Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Alan Cox]

> 	So other distro's did it too.  Why did nobody complain till RedHat
> did it?  Because no one else decided to use, as the default, a bleeding edge 
> compiler that not only won't compile the kernel but won't even touch a lot of 
> userspace code either.

Actually the first people to do exactly that were Debian, who shipped a compiler
that couldnt reliably build a kernel for the time period. Thats one of the
reasons they put in gcc272. 

Its good sense to tie large critical pieces of hard to validate code to the
compiler. There is a reason you'll find any good software company maintains
old releases in archives with the build environment to reproduce them exactly


Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Miquel van Smoorenburg]

In article <200011012247.OAA19546@pizda.ninka.net>,
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
>   Date: 	Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:57:34 +0100
>   From: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>
>
>   kgcc is a redhat'ism.
>
>Debian has it too.

Not quite. Debian does have an completely optional gcc272 package. It
is _not_ installed as kgcc (the binary is called gcc272) and you don't
_have_ to compile your kernels with it. It is an optional package and
you have to actively select and install it. By default Debian comes
with gcc 2.95.2 which compiles current 2.2.x and 2.4.x kernels just
fine. At least I haven't used gcc272 for kernels for at least a year now
(I think, first egcs, then gcc 2.95) and on all the servers I administer
(and that's quite a few) gcc 2.95 hasn't caused any problems.

Mike.
-- 
People get the operating system they deserve.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jeff Garzik]

Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> By default Debian comes
> with gcc 2.95.2 which compiles current 2.2.x and 2.4.x kernels just
> fine.

<checks>  Linux-Mandrake 7.2 doesn't seem to be missing gcc patches that
Debian has...  and in our testing we've found that some drivers are
still miscompiled by gcc 2.95.2+fixes.  I'm not so sure you are correct
here...

-- 
Jeff Garzik             | "Mind if I drive?"  -Sam
Building 1024           | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the
MandrakeSoft            |  dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
                        |                     -Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Miquel van Smoorenburg]

According to Jeff Garzik:
> Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> > By default Debian comes
> > with gcc 2.95.2 which compiles current 2.2.x and 2.4.x kernels just
> > fine.
> 
> <checks>  Linux-Mandrake 7.2 doesn't seem to be missing gcc patches that
> Debian has...  and in our testing we've found that some drivers are
> still miscompiled by gcc 2.95.2+fixes.  I'm not so sure you are correct
> here...

Really? Interesting! I'm not claiming I am completely correct, I'm
just stating what seems to be current Debian policy. Can you tell
me what drivers are miscompiled by 2.95.2, I'd appreciate that.

Mike.
-- 
People get the operating system they deserve.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[George]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Kurt Garloff wrote:

>On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:40:58PM +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote:
>> I have noticed that in latest patch for 2.4.0, the global Makefile
>> no more tries to find a kgcc, and falls back to gcc.
>> I suppose because 2.7.2.3 is no more good for kernel, but still you
>> can use 2.91, 2.95.2 or 2.96(??). Is that a patch that leaked in
>> the way to test10, or is for another reason ?.
>
>kgcc is a redhat'ism. They invented this package because their 2.96 fails
>compiling a stable kernel. However, it's not a good idea to dist specific
>code into the official kernel tree.

Big picture.

It may be distribution specific right now, but that doesn't stop other
distributions from needing it later.

-- 
-George Greer

(It's not like it's "redhat-gcc", which would qualify as specific.)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Jan Dvorak]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:04:38PM -0500, George wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> >kgcc is a redhat'ism. They invented this package because their 2.96 fails
> >compiling a stable kernel. However, it's not a good idea to dist specific
> >code into the official kernel tree.
> 
> Big picture.
> 
> It may be distribution specific right now, but that doesn't stop other
> distributions from needing it later.

If number of distribution kernel-independent-compilers increase (and it
will, at least until gcc 2.97/3.0 branch stabilize), it will be better to
put in kernel variable (maybe in config) which cc to use. I agree, that this
is not the best thing to do - put such code in kernel, but if it'll be
needed, it can be done as shell script - 'which cc you want to compile
kernel ? (1) gcc (default) (2) kgcc .... (X) Other: ___'. 

Jan Dvorak <johnydog@go.cz>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ?

[Alan Cox]

> kgcc is a redhat'ism. They invented this package because their 2.96 fails
> compiling a stable kernel.
> However, it's not a good idea to dist specific code into the official kernel
> tree.

The changes in 2.2.18pre for picking the compiler are actually for multiple
distributions. The 'kgcc' convention isnt a Red Hat invention btw. Its from
Conectiva.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/