On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, P. Christeas wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 January 2006 2:26 pm, P. Christeas wrote:
> > Does that apply to gcc-4.0.2 as well? It is mentioned in linux
> > documentation that -funit-at-a-time is safe as of gcc-4.x. Is there (I'm
> > not a MIPS expert) a way to verify whether gcc produces wrong instructions?
> > I've had a similar problem (I only try with gcc 4, because I compile linux
> > 2.6) and is reduced when I use -fno-unit-at-a-time. Still, I have
> > instability, which now appears less often.
> > I've tried the '-fno-unit-at-a-time' solution (for the whole kernel) and
> > the 'pop/push' at interrupt.h fix.
> Just to let you know:
> In a very interesting twist, gcc4.0.2 produces a faulty kernel with the
> kernel (as the latter is provided from the hardware's manufacturer).
> I'm validating gcc and binutils at the moment.
That's why 2 days ago this one went in in 2.4.x:
| [PATCH] document that gcc 4 is not supported
| gcc 4 is not supported for compiling kernel 2.4, and I don't see any
| compelling reason why kernel 2.4 should ever be adapted to gcc 4.
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- email@example.com
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds