On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 04:23:55PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 15:45, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > > > In that case, you might want to post it after all, since 2.95 is still > > the recommended kernel compiler. However, I find it strange that no > > one complained about 2.95 breaking with it, while many people > > complained about 2.96. However, I recommend you check yet again - I > > just checked with 2.95 and it works for me. > > there are many flavours of 2.95 (including official fsf releases like > 2.95.1, 2.95.2 and .3 and .4; anything below .3 is known to miscompile > the kernel; also distros like debian ship a fixed up 2.95) Fair enough. I tested with gcc version 2.95.4 20011002, debian unstable. Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ "the nucleus of linux oscillates my world" - gccbot@#offtopic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
