Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > if the person who sent you the -pre4 patch against module.c
> > had Cc:'ed this mailing list then your kernel would do
> > something useful when compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3.
> 
> It seems that gcc-2.7.2.3 is terminally ill. I'd rather change
> Documentation/Changes, and just document the fact.
> 
> These kinds of subtle work-arounds for gcc bugs are not really acceptable,
> nor is it worthwhile complaining when somebody does development with a gcc
> that is _not_ broken, and doesn't notice that some random gcc bug breaks
> the kernel for others.

Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).
								Pavel
-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org
-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Jeff Garzik]

Pavel Machek wrote:
> Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
> reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).

What fails, when you use egcs-1.1.2 to build 2.0.x or early 2.2.x?

Maybe they need -fno-strict-aliasing... is that what you are referring
to?

Regards,

	Jeff



-- 
Jeff Garzik                    | "Mind if I drive?"  -Sam
Building 1024                  | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at
the
MandrakeSoft                   |  dash and screaming 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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Alan Cox]

> Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
> reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).

There has only been one know egcs 1.1 build problem found in the last 9 
months or so (the fpu emu one). I really dont think using egcs 1.1.2 to build
2.2 kernels is a problem. In fact its probably the default nowdays

-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Alan Cox]

> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
> > reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).
> 
> What fails, when you use egcs-1.1.2 to build 2.0.x or early 2.2.x?

egcs miscompiles inlined strstr. It gets combined with bad asm constraints
to mean that 2.0 and earlier 2.2 will crash when fed the right (wrong ?) 
sequence of FPU ops to software emulate


-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Keith Owens]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:45:13 +0200, 
Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> wrote:
>Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
>reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).

You can have multiple versions of gcc installed, just select the one to
use when you compile the kernel.

CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel
CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel
CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel

-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Dominik Kubla]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 12:00:43PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:45:13 +0200, 
> Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> wrote:
> >Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
> >reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).
> 
> You can have multiple versions of gcc installed, just select the one to
> use when you compile the kernel.
> 
> CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel
> CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel
> CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel

Even simpler: "gcc -V 2.7.2.3" or "gcc -V 2.95.2" or whatever...

Yours,
  Dominik Kubla
-- 
http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html - No Software Patents In Europe!
-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Richard Henderson]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> Even simpler: "gcc -V 2.7.2.3" or "gcc -V 2.95.2" or whatever...

Which was a nice idea, but it doesn't actually work.  Changes
in spec file format between versions makes this fall over.


r~
-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Dominik Kubla]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 05:27:00PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> > Even simpler: "gcc -V 2.7.2.3" or "gcc -V 2.95.2" or whatever...
> 
> Which was a nice idea, but it doesn't actually work.  Changes
> in spec file format between versions makes this fall over.

Wow. So much for reading the manual... well, that's considered 
cheating anyway, isn't it?

Dominik
-- 
http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html - No Software Patents In Europe!
-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Rusty Russell]

In message <4309.972694843@ocs3.ocs-net> you write:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:45:13 +0200, 
> Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> wrote:
> >Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
> >reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).
> 
> You can have multiple versions of gcc installed, just select the one to
> use when you compile the kernel.
> 
> CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel
> CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel
> CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel

No, environment doesn't override make variables by default.  This
works on any shell:

	make CC=egcs <targets>

Rusty.
--
Hacking time.
-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Peter Samuelson]

  [rth]
> > Which was a nice idea, but it doesn't actually work.  Changes
> > in spec file format between versions makes this fall over.

[Dominik Kubla]
> Wow. So much for reading the manual... well, that's considered
> cheating anyway, isn't it?

I know this was true at one time -- egcs couldn't read 2.7 spec files,
or something like that.  (I remember at the time thinking "so much for
the great and glorious '-V' theory".)

But I think it's since been fixed:

  $ gcc -v
  Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.2/specs
  gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux)
  $ gcc -V2.7.2.3 -v
  Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.7.2.3/specs
  gcc driver version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3

Is there more subtle breakage?

Peter
-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Peter Samuelson]

[Rusty]
> > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel
> > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel
> > CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel
> 
> No, environment doesn't override make variables by default.  This
> works on any shell:
> 
> 	make CC=egcs <targets>

If you're going to get pedantic, that won't work either -- since the
makefiles in kernels 2.0 and 2.2 expect $(CC) to include some compiler
flags.  This was fixed somewhere in 2.3.3x.

Peter
-
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/

Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Linux Kernel Developer]

So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x,
2.4.x(pre?) nowadays?  I've pretty much kept gcc 2.7.2.3 around just for
compiling the kernel however now I hear you need egcs to compile 2.4?  I
don't mind keeping 2.7.2.3 around in its own installation directory just for
the purpose of doing kernel work however from a previous post I've now got
the impression that egcs has become the recommended compiler?  If I'm going
to keep a secondary compiler around (outside of gcc 2.95.2 which I still
hear is no good for kernel compiles) just for kernel work I'd prefer to use
my disk space on the recommended one.

>
> [Rusty]
> > > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.0 kernel
> > > CC=gcc-2723 make 2.2 kernel
> > > CC=egcs make 2.4 kernel
> >
> > No, environment doesn't override make variables by default.  This
> > works on any shell:
> >
> > make CC=egcs <targets>
>
> If you're going to get pedantic, that won't work either -- since the
> makefiles in kernels 2.0 and 2.2 expect $(CC) to include some compiler
> flags.  This was fixed somewhere in 2.3.3x.
>
> Peter
> -


-
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: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Peter Samuelson]

> So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x,
> 2.4.x(pre?) nowadays?

* 2.91.66 aka egcs 1.1.2.  It has been officially blessed for 2.4 and
  has been given an informal thumbs-up by Alan for 2.2.  (It does NOT
  work for 2.0, if you still care about that.)

* 2.7.2.3 works for 2.2 (and 2.0) but NOT for 2.4.

* 2.95.2 seems to work with both 2.2 and 2.4 (no known bugs, AFAIK) and
  many of us use it, but it is a little riskier than egcs.

* Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel.

Peter
-
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: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Martin Dalecki]

Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> > So which is the recommended compiler for each kernel version 2.2.x,
> > 2.4.x(pre?) nowadays?
> 
> * 2.91.66 aka egcs 1.1.2.  It has been officially blessed for 2.4 and
>   has been given an informal thumbs-up by Alan for 2.2.  (It does NOT
>   work for 2.0, if you still care about that.)
> 
> * 2.7.2.3 works for 2.2 (and 2.0) but NOT for 2.4.
> 
> * 2.95.2 seems to work with both 2.2 and 2.4 (no known bugs, AFAIK) and
>   many of us use it, but it is a little riskier than egcs.
> 
> * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel.

Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of
preprocessor warnings in some drivers.
-
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: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Richard Henderson]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:05:43AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> But I think it's since been fixed:

No.

> Is there more subtle breakage?

Yes.


r~
-
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: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Horst von Brand]

Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com> said:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:

[...]

> > * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel.

> Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of
> preprocessor warnings in some drivers.

CVS (from 20001028 or so) gave a 2.4.0.10.6/i686 that crashed on boot, no
time to dig deeper yet.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                       mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513
-
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: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 05:50:07PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com> said:
> > Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel.
> 
> > Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of
> > preprocessor warnings in some drivers.
> 
> CVS (from 20001028 or so) gave a 2.4.0.10.6/i686 that crashed on boot, no
> time to dig deeper yet.

CVS 2.97 is known to miscompile e.g. buffer.c.

	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: Recommended compiler? - Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant)

[Martin Dalecki]

Horst von Brand wrote:
> 
> Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com> said:
> > Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > * Red Hat "2.96" or CVS 2.97 will probably break any known kernel.
> 
> > Works fine for me and 2.4.0-test10-pre5... however there are tons of
> > preprocessor warnings in some drivers.
> 
> CVS (from 20001028 or so) gave a 2.4.0.10.6/i686 that crashed on boot, no
> time to dig deeper yet.

I was just using the compiler shipped by RedHat with all the fixes
contained
therein.... self compiled under glibc-2.1.95 on a system which some long
time
ago was RedHat-5.1 ;-). And it worked.
-
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/