From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264191AbTDJVbL (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:31:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264193AbTDJVbK (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:31:10 -0400 Received: from wohnheim.fh-wedel.de ([195.37.86.122]:19648 "EHLO wohnheim.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264191AbTDJVbF (for ); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:31:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:32:32 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: Dan Kegel Cc: wd@denx.de, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: gcc-2.95 broken on PPC? Message-ID: <20030410213232.GB31167@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <3E95AF4F.20105@kegel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3E95AF4F.20105@kegel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 10 April 2003 10:52:15 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, when you say you see more problems with gcc-3.x > compilers, what is x? I'd understand if you saw problems > with gcc-3.0.*, but I had hoped that gcc-3.2.2 would compile > good kernels for ppc. > (Me, I'm still using Montavista Linux 2.0's gcc-2.95.3 to build my ppc > kernels, > but am looking for an excuse to switch to gcc-3.2.* or gcc-3.3.*.) We've had a "problem" with 3.2. Some conditional new code looked like this: #define LONG_MACRO \ asm \ asm \ asm \ #ifdef FOO \ asm \ asm \ #else \ asm \ #endif \ asm \ asm Interesting, isn't it? The fun part was that it was compiling cleanly in 3.2, but not in 2.95. Sadly, noone bothered to compile this with 2.95 for a long time. Jörn -- More computing sins are committed in the name of efficiency (without necessarily achieving it) than for any other single reason - including blind stupidity. -- W. A. Wulf