Professional Web Applications Themes

RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0 - Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration

Hi! Had to discover that gcc 2.96 (latest update from RH) is seriously broken, it worked with 2.4.x but can't compile 2.6.0. [..] fs/proc/array.c:398: confused by earlier errors, bailing out make[2]: *** [fs/proc/array.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [fs/proc] Error 2 make: *** [fs] Error 2 OK, now Doentation/Changes says using 2.95.3 would be the most stable, albeit 3.0.x might be used, what did you use? Astonishing that I can't even take a look at the new gconfig, as my GTK seems to be to old. OK, always used 'menuconfig' anyway. Perhaps I should upgrade the whole system, but I'm not ...

  1. #1

    Default RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0

    Hi!

    Had to discover that gcc 2.96 (latest update from RH) is
    seriously broken, it worked with 2.4.x but can't compile 2.6.0.

    [..]
    fs/proc/array.c:398: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
    make[2]: *** [fs/proc/array.o] Error 1
    make[1]: *** [fs/proc] Error 2
    make: *** [fs] Error 2

    OK, now Doentation/Changes says using 2.95.3 would be the most
    stable, albeit 3.0.x might be used, what did you use?

    Astonishing that I can't even take a look at the new gconfig, as
    my GTK seems to be to old. OK, always used 'menuconfig' anyway.

    Perhaps I should upgrade the whole system, but I'm not sure which
    distro to use, perhaps RH ES 3.0?

    I'd like something rpm based.

    Thx for reading and happy x-mas to all of you!

    --
    Michael Heiming

    Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
    inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM
    Michael Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0

    On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:25:26 +0100, Michael Heiming
    <michael+heiming.de> wrote:
     

    And Merry Christmas to you!

    I believe I got a 2.6 kernel to compile with gcc296.

    No matter, If you are thinking of RH ES 3.0 and this is not a critical
    box needing support, you might want to look at this;

    http://whiteboxlinux.org/

    I may be trying it out myself on my home server soon. I'm running RH9
    right now, I'll probably put up a short post announcing my success or
    failure after it is done.

    --
    "Now are you talking about what it is you know
    Or just repeating what it was you heard".
    Grace Slick
    To email use rpiotro(at)wi(dot)rr(dot)com
    Rich Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0

    Rich Piotrowski <rr.com> wrote: 
     [/ref]

    [..]
     

    Lucky you, read there are some work around/patches but I'm
    unsure if I should make my hands dirty or better move to a gcc
    version that simply works.
     

    Sure this is a critical box, it does make the stats for this and
    a few other ngs once a week and does post our "new reader" FAQ
    twice a week. I'd call this mission critical.;))

    Albeit, I'm sure I can keep it running without any support.
     
     

    Thx, looks great, now I have two opportunities to chose.

    --
    Michael Heiming

    Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
    inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM
    Michael Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0


    "Michael Heiming" <michael+heiming.de> wrote in message
    news:heiming.de... 

    Sorry, if you're using RH 7.x, you're probably not going to be ready for a
    2.6.x kernel without a *lot* of work. Partly, the kernel used by RedHat for
    7.x was not an official FSF released kernel: it was a development branch
    that RedHat chose for 7.0 for reasons I do not understand, but it had a lot
    of fascinatinig issues with kernels. Partly, there are a bunch of other
    tools that need updating, such as modutils.

    They used to publish a "kgcc" you could actually use for kernels, but I
    don't remember of 7.3 had it. In any case, I'd hop to Fedora Core 1 and work
    with the new 2.6.x kernels there: I'm doing so and it's quite nice.
     

    Fedora is nice, plus I'm a cheap willing to be an unpaid beta tester
    before they port things to the supported releases.


    Nico Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0

    Nico Kadel-Garcia <net> wrote:

    [..]
     

    It worked fine with 2.4.x from kernel.org. Had "funny" issues
    with the RH 7.x kernel versions, some broke tools used to configure
    hw raid controller, another crashed under load and a marginal
    uptime of about 50 days. Albeit the latest updates seem to run fine.

    [..] 

    Yep, I'm considering updating anyway, there's more and more sw
    I's like to try, that wants a newer glibc then I have. Haven't
    considered Fedora until now, have to take a deeper look about the
    software used and the compatibility concerning RH ES/AS 3.0.

    --
    Michael Heiming

    Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
    inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM
    Michael Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0


    "Nico Kadel-Garcia" <net> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    > Sorry, if you're using RH 7.x, you're probably not going to be ready for a
    > 2.6.x kernel without a *lot* of work. Partly, the kernel used by RedHat[/ref]
    for 
    lot 

    GAHHH! Typo! I meant gcc, not the kernel. RedHat used the 2.96 development
    branch of gcc development.

    Excuse me, I had a sleeping 2-year-old draped on my shoulders while typing
    this.



    Nico Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0

    Nico Kadel-Garcia <net> wrote:

    [..] 

    No problem, didn't assume the FSF would release the Linux kernel.
    ;)

    --
    Michael Heiming

    Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
    inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM
    Michael Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0

    On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 09:16:44 +0100, Michael Heiming wrote:
     
    > [/ref]
    >
    > [..]

    >
    > Lucky you, read there are some work around/patches but I'm
    > unsure if I should make my hands dirty or better move to a gcc
    > version that simply works.

    >
    > Sure this is a critical box, it does make the stats for this and
    > a few other ngs once a week and does post our "new reader" FAQ
    > twice a week. I'd call this mission critical.;))
    >
    > Albeit, I'm sure I can keep it running without any support.


    >
    > Thx, looks great, now I have two opportunities to chose.[/ref]

    I'm running fedora core 1 and I like it a lot, after minor changes
    (e.g. install gv instead of gnome's ggv, xv, acroread, etc.) It
    comes with the latest packages (e.g. gtkmm2, gtk2, XFree86-4.3).
    I compiled the kernel 2.6 with the default gcc compiler which was
    gcc-3.3.2:

    2) silviu:~> dmesg | more
    Linux version 2.6.0-08 (rootneptune) (gcc version 3.3.2 20031022 (Red Hat Linux 3.3.2-1)) #13 Sat Dec 27 11:42:05 EST 2003

    Works fine so far. Didn't use any strange optimizations though,
    just the defaults. I've been fiddling with the 2.6 kernel for days
    now, to get everything to work, mainly because the init scripts
    expect to read from /proc, while in 2.6 one should use the new
    /sys filesystem. You can still use /proc though together with /proc.

    Silviu Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0

    > Sure this is a critical box, it does make the stats for this and 

    I hate those stats.

    and does post our "new reader" FAQ 

    Now that's good.

    Silviu Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0

    Silviu Minut <msu.edu> wrote: [/ref]
     

    Why? It's just for the fun of it, you read the disclaimer?
     [/ref]
     

    Yep, if someone would actually read them, I'm unsure if things
    have improved due to the FAQ?

    --
    Michael Heiming

    Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
    inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM
    Michael Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: RH 7.3 gcc broken, compiling kernel 2.6.0

     
    >
    > Why? It's just for the fun of it, you read the disclaimer?[/ref]

    For the very reason stated in the disclaimer. Remember P.L. ?
    What ever happened to him anyway?
     [/ref]

    >
    > Yep, if someone would actually read them, I'm unsure if things
    > have improved due to the FAQ?[/ref]

    I believe so. But we are getting off track.

    Silviu Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: [RH 7.3 gcc broken] Now weekly stats (OT)

    Silviu Minut <msu.edu> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > Why? It's just for the fun of it, you read the disclaimer?[/ref][/ref]
     

    Thought I had read some post from him in the last few weeks?

    Even if it would be great if the script could "measure"
    usefulness, it's not the scope of the stats. Since who should
    decide what is useful and what not?

    Perhaps there's a post I think it's really crappy, but someone
    else might find it useful. It gets even more difficult if it
    comes to my own posts. Sure most of them are really great.;) But
    then I wouldn't like to estimate them somehow.

    That's all to the reader, the stats just give an overview what
    has happened in the last week. Even if someone is uprated, well
    then that's why there is the disclaimer at all.

    --
    Michael Heiming

    Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
    inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM
    Michael Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Compiling my first kernel...
    By Jay in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 23rd, 04:29 AM
  2. compiling kernel for an old machine with a new one
    By vittorio in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 11th, 09:49 AM
  3. compiling the kernel with GCC 3.3
    By Raffaele Sandrini in forum Debian
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 7th, 05:10 AM
  4. Compiling kernel with patches
    By Christophe Courtois in forum Debian
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 5th, 05:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139