[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <487D15FC.1060300@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:26:20 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] core/percpu for v2.6.27
Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
>
> in hindsight core/percpu indeed looks unfinished and direction-less
> without core/percpu-zerobased - but the latter is not stable yet.
>
> Ingo
Well it's very stable using gcc-4.2.4. The earlier problems came about
using gcc-4.2.0 and has yet to be determined what exactly went wrong.
(And I need to install gcc-3.2 to complete the build/test QA.)
Btw, is there a list of "bad" gcc's for kernel building? Or better yet,
can the Makefile script provide a warning when a known "bad" gcc is
being used to compile the kernel? I seem to recall that Peter provided
this list:
4.2.3 is fine; he was using 4.2.0 before, and as far as I know,
4.2.0 and 4.2.1 are known broken for the kernel.
Thanks!
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists