From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 7 May 2002 20:19:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 7 May 2002 20:19:32 -0400 Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:26889 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 7 May 2002 20:19:31 -0400 Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel To: kaos@ocs.com.au (Keith Owens) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 01:37:38 +0100 (BST) Cc: ionut@cs.columbia.edu (Ion Badulescu), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <2658.1020816607@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> from "Keith Owens" at May 08, 2002 10:10:07 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >- I think looking for kgcc before gcc is a bad idea. If you really > >want something like that, make it look for kgcc-2.5 instead. > > That came from one of the -ac trees. No matter which order I use, > somebody will want a different order and complain. At least kbuild 2.5 > tells you what it is using, instead of silently defaulting to an > unexpected value. For 2.2 - for 2.4 using kgcc generally gets you egcs-1.1.2 which tends to be a bad idea, and for 2.5 its a no go. I'd drop the kgcc search. Alan