From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264054AbTDJObi (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:31:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264059AbTDJObi (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:31:38 -0400 Received: from mailout08.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.20]:63408 "EHLO mailout08.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264054AbTDJObg (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:31:36 -0400 To: mikpe@csd.uu.se Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Wolfgang Denk Subject: Re: gcc-2.95 broken on PPC? X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Apr 2003 14:56:28 +0200." <200304101256.h3ACuSw3022796@harpo.it.uu.se> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:42:46 +0200 Message-Id: <20030410144251.9B83CC5877@atlas.denx.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <200304101256.h3ACuSw3022796@harpo.it.uu.se> you wrote: > > It seems gcc-2.95, specifically 2.95.4 as included in YDL2.3, > generates incorrect code for recent 2.4 standard kernels on PPC. Ummm.. do you have any direct evidence, i. e. a source file where the generated object code is obviously wrong? > However, bugs #1 (zlib.c) and #3 (div64.h) disappear if I compile > my kernels with gcc-3.2.2 instead of 2.95.4, which is a strong > indication that 2.95.4 is broken on PPC. Is this something that's This is speculation only. We use gcc-2.95.4 as part of our ELDK in all of our projects, and a lot of people are using these tools, too. We definitely see more problems with gcc-3.x compilers. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de Overflow on /dev/null, please empty the bit bucket.