Mail Archives: pgcc/1999/03/11/15:55:58
On Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 09:49:01AM -0500, Philip Long wrote:
> That's 'officially' true but ...
>
> Unofficially, patches that remove errors with pgcc, egcs (at least) are
> generally accepted.
Not in every case. Linus is flaming around publicly and privately
increasingly often. I wonder when he will be revoked from his position as
linux god and the new "linux steering committee" (a.k.a. david miller,
alan cox and a few others) takes over.
But seriously..
> As a result, most of us expect the kernel to function correctly when compiled
> with pgcc / egcs.
I don't, as 2.0 requires specific (but available) patches, and 2.2.3 is
not fixed to work (and it doesn't). Maybe it works with pgcc-1.1.1, but I
don't support this.
> I compiled (almost) every kernel (2.034-2.036,and (2.1.120-2.2.1) on a couple
> of machines (one PII one K6) without any trouble. Well, once when I went to
> the ensoniq audio PCI there was a problem, but the author fixed it on my
> suggestion.
the point is that I don't want to hear bug reports regarding the kernel,
as my (official) position is that the kernel is buggy. I tried to be
cooperative with Linus (and his problems), but thats over once and for
all.
Inofficially, I want the kernel to work with pgcc, of course, but until the
current faq maintainer does hard work and sorts out all these issues in the
faq I'll tell all people "don't do that!".
;)
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
- Raw text -