Ubuntu kernel builds

[R Kimber]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:49:58 +0200
Alan McKinnon <alan at linuxholdings.co.za> wrote:

> On Wednesday 15 March 2006 12:26, R Kimber wrote:
> > I notice from the logs that the kernel I'm running seems to have
> > been built using gcc version 3.4.5 20050809 (prerelease).
> >
> > Shouldn't kernels be built with a stable version of gcc as approved
> > by the kernel developers?
> 
> There isn't a "should" aspect to it - you can compile the kernel with 
> any compiler you like. 

But is it wise to be using a prerelease version of gcc?

How confident can one be that you get an equally stable kernel using
"any compiler you like"?

> Your question is probably related to the README in the kernel
> sources, where the developers are basically saying:
> 
> "We recommend you use 2.95.3 because we have lots of history on that 
> version. If you use something else and have a problem we won't know 
> if it's because of a different compiler or a code bug, so don't 
> expect us to fall over ourselves to help you out."
> 
> In practice compiling a kernel with 3.x.y is quite safe

Actually, I wasn't specifically addressing that issue.  I was concerned
about the stability of the kernel built with a non-stable version of
gcc.

However, since you raised it, history has obviously taught the
developers something that has lead them to think that not all gccs are
equal, as it were.

- Richard.
-- 
Richard Kimber
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/