delgarde at ihug.co.nz
Wed Jul 16 16:03:01 PDT 2003
Sam Halliday wrote:
>Simon Geard wrote:
>>Of course, the kernel does compile fine with gcc3.2, as do all the
>>extra modules I've encountered.
>the kernel _compiles_ fine... but is it actually rock solid? i am going
>with kernel-team reccomendations with regards any kernel recompile, and
>i use gcc-2.95.3 (which is not just any 'ol gcc-2.9x) as they ask us to!
>i had some filesystem and pci issues with gcc-3.x which troubled me, as
>they do not appear with a gcc-2.95.3 compiled kernel. i would reccomend
>that all LFSers to the same... some things are just not meant to be
>compiled with mad optimisations or exotic new compilers we like to use
Varies from case to case, I guess. Basically, I've never bothered
installing 2.95.3 since LFS moved to 3.x, so I've been using 3.x
compiled kernels since then. Never had any issues with it.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support