"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote: > > ... > There hasn't been a compiler since as long as I can remember which > hasn't broken the kernel in at least one of its incarnations. > gcc-2.96-97.1 should be solid for the kernel. At least one older > release of 2.96 was broken in nasty ways. hmm. The version I had the failures with was earlier than that. I was getting the strange death down in the swap code, removing ptes, iirc. Chuck Lever posted a detailed analysis of exactly the same bug on linux-kernel yesterday. Heaps and heaps of detail, except he forgot to mention the compiler version! > If I can show you a version > of 2.91 which breaks the kernel, will you forswear 2.91.66 too? :-) Only if the later versions compiles kernels at the same speed :) Everything after 2.95 is a compile-speed dog (burn, burn). -
