X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs- Message-ID: <19980914230126.41947@cerebro.laendle> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:01:26 +0200 From: Marc Lehmann To: Shawn Leas , Marc Lehmann Cc: Steven Snyder , Hans Dumbrajs , beastium Subject: Re: Problems with Linux kernel compiled with pgcc Mail-Followup-To: Shawn Leas , Marc Lehmann , Steven Snyder , Hans Dumbrajs , beastium References: <19980914220355 DOT 03896 AT cerebro DOT laendle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Shawn Leas on Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 03:56:37AM -0500 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.1.120 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.91.57 19980901 (egcs-1.1 release)) Status: RO Content-Length: 1152 Lines: 28 On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 03:56:37AM -0500, Shawn Leas wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Marc Lehmann wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 1998 at 07:58:54AM -0500, Steven Snyder wrote: > > > I think that the compiler restriction on 2.0.x kernel building depends on > > > *which* modules are compiled. > > > > might well be the case ;) But I wouldn't try. Hmm.. but its often riskier to > > use pgcc than gcc, if it works its ok ;) > > After all, what would EGCS be with/out the E for experimental? Its for "enhanced", not "experimental". Its to calm down RMS. If you compare egcs-1.1 and gcc-2.8, you will find that egcs is a) much more enhanced (g++ for example, java and chill frontend, optimizations) b) much more stable ;) -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |