From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:55:53 +0400 From: Konstantin Lepikhov To: ALT Linux Developers List Message-ID: <20030614185553.GA3792@lks.home> Mail-Followup-To: ALT Linux Developers List Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: ALT Linux Sisyphus (20030522) 2.4.20-alt5-up Subject: [devel] [volodya@mindspring.com: Re: [GATOS]GCC 3.2] X-BeenThere: devel@altlinux.ru X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Devel discussion list List-Id: ALT Devel discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:56:48 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Hi! Похоже, для gatos драйверов придется собирать отдельное ядро... ----- Forwarded message from Vladimir Dergachev ----- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 13:03:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Vladimir Dergachev To: "Andrew S. Johnson" cc: gatos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [GATOS]GCC 3.2 X-X-Sender: volodya@node2.localnet.net Reply-To: Vladimir Dergachev In-Reply-To: <200306140912.54055.andy@asjohnson.com> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Andrew S. Johnson wrote: > Ati.2 from CVS fails to compile radeon_video.c, and using km from > CVS locks up my computer after a few seconds. I've seen other > threads that indicate that the CVS code is tested with gcc 2.95, > and that using other versions are at our own risk. When can we > expect the CVS code to work with a relatively current version of > gcc? Strangely, those of us with the newest hardware are also > using the newest software. I could learn C and fix it myself, but > would you really want to use kernel modules from someone who > just learned C? On the upside, I've been getting pretty good at > TCL because of some projects at work. However, I don't think > avview is the source of the lockups. FWIW, according to the > GNU website, gcc 2.95 was released in 1999, almost four years > ago. You aren't going to persuade me that using the compiler that was barely released is better than one that was released four years ago and that I am familiar with. Besides, I need gcc 2.95 for my paying work, thus, unless gcc 3.2.x will be able to compile all the code as 2.95 does, I am not touching it. Btw, in case you are wondering, it took me at least two years to switch to 2.95. So, if you are looking for someone to fix code so that it works with gcc 3.2.x (which, ideally, should not be necessary), don't look at me. It is unlikely I will upgrade my main machine for at least several months. However, I will gladly accept patches that make it work with 3.2.x, provided they do not break 2.95 (which I can easily test at the moment). best regards Vladimir Dergachev PS And no, there is big difference between gcc and linux kernel. If anything, I place compiler upgrades one step above C library on my "avoid if you can" list (works good too - I skipped a few releases of glibc that Redhat pestered us with). > > Andy Johnson > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay > Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here: > http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 > _______________________________________________ > Gatos-devel mailing list > Gatos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gatos-devel > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here: http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Gatos-devel mailing list Gatos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gatos-devel ----- End forwarded message ----- -- WBR, Konstantin chat with ==>ICQ: 109916175 Lepikhov, speak to ==>JID: lakostis@jabber.org aka L.A. Kostis write to ==>mailto:lakostis@pisem.net.nospam ...The information is like the bank... (c) EC8OR