compiler question

[Net Llama!]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Tony Alfrey wrote:
> On Monday 21 July 2003 08:02 am, Net Llama! wrote:
> > > a)  will 3.3 prevent me from now making small changes in my 2.4.4
> > > kernel previously compiled with 2.95.2?
> >
> > Looks like Redhat has built a 2.4.21 kernel with gcc-3.3.  Now I
> > don't know what you mean by a 'small change'.  I'd say that its not a
> > good idea to build new kernel modules with one compiler, and the
> > kernel with another, regardless of the versions of gcc.
>
> I don't build with modules, I just use the 'everything but the kitchen
> sink' approach, and recompile the whole thing and back up the old one.
> I might want to make just one change in the config file.

OK, so you build monolithic kernels?  IN that case, its a brand new
kernel, and shouldn't be a problem.

> > > c)  Is there some clever way that I might switch between 2.95.2 and
> > > 3.3? gcc at the command line presumably knows only my most recent
> > > compiler.
> >
> > See my SxS.  There are a few different tricks, but i've found setting
> > the CC env var to the location of the gcc that you wish to use to be
> > the best solution.
>
> It is not clear to me what switches put gcc3 into usr/local/bin (or is
> that the default?).  Right now my gcc is in usr/bin.

/usr/local/bin is the default location for the resulting binaries for
gcc-3.x.

> > > General suggestions about switching would be appreciated.
> >
> > I've not run into any gcc specific problems since upgrading.  Now
> > going to glibc-2.3.x is another story altogether (mucho headaches).
>
> I've heard this is not pleasant.  Why would I need to do this?

Not to build gcc-3.x, no.  However, alot of newer stuff is wanting
glibc-2.3.x.  You *do* need gcc-3.x to build glibc-2.3.x though.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman				netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo		     http://netllama.ipfox.com