make in 2.6.x
Hello
Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules modules_install" or do I have to do make bzImage; make modules modules_install?
Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
Cl<
Quoted 4 lines · Karel Kulhavý
Hello
Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules
modules_install" or do I have to do make bzImage; make modulesmodules_install?
# make all modules_install install
Builds image and modules and installs them both. At least on Redhat, also an initial ram disk is created and grub is adapted.
Quoted 2 lines
Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
# make help
and read the top-level Makefile itself. It is a quite readable file format.
Regards,
Bas.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
gcc 2.95.3
Quoted 6 lines · Jeremy Andrews
Quoted 4 lines
Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules
modules_install" or do I have to do make bzImage; make modulesmodules_install?Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
make help
Cool. I got to README :)
I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?
Cl<
Re: gcc 2.95.3
Quoted 2 lines
I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?
Please have a look at http://developer.osdl.org/cherry/compile/
It should work fine.
Daniel Andersen
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 001b01c3e1ca$26101f20$1e00000a@black
Re: gcc 2.95.3
Quoted 4 lines · Daniel Andersen
Quoted 2 lines
I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?
Please have a look at http://developer.osdl.org/cherry/compile/
What if the kernel compiles cleanly but the generated code is invalid? Or is gcc-3.2.2 BugFree(TM) (BugFree as in BugFree speech, not as in BugFree beer)?
Cl<
Re: gcc 2.95.3
Quoted 9 lines · Karel Kulhavý
Quoted 4 lines · Daniel Andersen
Quoted 2 lines
I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?
Please have a look at http://developer.osdl.org/cherry/compile/
What if the kernel compiles cleanly but the generated code is invalid? Or is gcc-3.2.2 BugFree(TM) (BugFree as in BugFree speech, not as in BugFree beer)?
Many people have been using gcc-3.2 or later to build kernels, and I haven't really heard of any problems with this, at least on i386. I personally have used 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 (well, with Debian's patches) and haven't had any weirdness with 2.6 or 2.4. ISTR there being arches that need 3.x to compile, but I could be mistaken.
2.95.3 is definitely the *oldest* compiler you'd want to use, and pretty much skip between that and 3.2.
Matt
Re: gcc 2.95.3
Quoted 10 lines · Matthew Reppert
snip
Many people have been using gcc-3.2 or later to build kernels, and I haven't really heard of any problems with this, at least on i386. I personally have used 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 (well, with Debian's patches) and haven't had any weirdness with 2.6 or 2.4. ISTR there being arches that need 3.x to compile, but I could be mistaken.
Quoted 6 lines
2.95.3 is definitely the *oldest* compiler you'd want to use, and pretty much skip between that and 3.2.
Matt
Same here. I've been using gcc3.2.0 and beyond currently 3.3.2 since the day they were released and never had any big issues. I would recomend using gcc 3.3.2 since it improves performance when using optimizations quite a bit as far as I can remember the statistics.
Stef
Re: gcc 2.95.3
Quoted 4 lines · Stef van der Made
Same here. I've been using gcc3.2.0 and beyond currently 3.3.2 since the day they were released and never had any big issues. I would recomend using gcc 3.3.2 since it improves performance when using optimizations quite a bit as far as I can remember the statistics.
On ARM at least, gcc 3.2.x seems buggy. It's along the lines of this:
3.2.0: incorrect function argument offset calculation. 3.2.x: miscompiles NEW_AUX_ENT in fs/binfmt_elf.c
(http://gcc.gnu.org/PR8896) and incorrect structure initialisation in fs/jffs2/erase.c
I suspect that the fs/jffs2/erase.c problem is not ARM-specific, though I'm no compiler expert.
However, gcc 3.3 seems table on ARM, and I'm not aware of any problems with any further 3.3.x releases.
Signature · 4 lines
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial coreRe: gcc 2.95.3
Quoted 2 lines · Russell King
I suspect that the
fs/jffs2/erase.cproblem is not ARM-specific, though I'm no compiler expert.
I think it's been seen on MIPS too.
Signature · 1 line
dwmw2
Re: gcc 2.95.3
In reply to Stef van der MadeQuoted 9 lines · Stef van der Made
Matthew Reppert wrote:
Same here. I've been using gcc3.2.0 and beyond currently 3.3.2 since the day they were released and never had any big issues. I would recomend using gcc 3.3.2 since it improves performance when using optimizations quite a bit as far as I can remember the statistics.Stef
Well, according to this list, gcc-3.3.2 at least has problems to compile ALSA correctly, unless you activate framepointer support.
IB
Signature · 4 lines
"For every government X there is at least one government Y such that X would claim that Y is a bunch of corrupt assholes. Since every government is a bunch of corrupt assholes, every government is right at least in one of its claims." -- Al Viro discussing politics on lkml
Re: gcc 2.95.3
Quoted 8 lines · Ingo Buescher
snip
Well, according to this list, gcc-3.3.2 at least has problems to compile ALSA correctly, unless you activate framepointer support.
IB
I don't seem to have any issues using ALSA since kernel 2.6.1 and gcc 3.3.2. I'm using an soundblaster live emu10k. I did have issues before this kernel version and had to use OSS emulation. btw I'm using x86 (Athlon K7)
Cheers,
Stef
Re: gcc 2.95.3
In reply to Karel KulhavýQuoted 4 lines · Karel Kulhavý
Quoted 3 lines · Jeremy Andrews
Quoted 3 lines
Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules
modules_install" or do I have to do make bzImage; make modulesmodules_install?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
make help
Cool. I got to README :)
I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?
I've been compiling 2.5 and 2.6 kernels since gcc 3.3 with no problems. In fact, there are patches on the -mm tree to help compiling with gcc 3.4 and 3.5.
I think the Documentation is a little bit updated ;-)
Re: gcc 2.95.3
In reply to Karel KulhavýQuoted 4 lines · Karel Kulhavý
Cool. I got to README :)
I read here "make sure you have gcc 2.95.3 available" - does it mean my gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.2.2 is not suitable for kernel compiling?
AFAIK, the README is woefully out of date.
Quoted 9 lines · Jeremy Andrews
Quoted 4 lines
Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules
modules_install" or do I have to do make bzImage; make modulesmodules_install?Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
make help
Cheers,
-Jeremy
I have read make help and skimmed through README however what I learned is that the sequence "make bzImage ; make modules ; make modules_install" is correct, but found no approval or disapproval for
"make bzImage modules modules_install"
Cl<
Quoted 4 lines · Karel Kulhavý
Hello
Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules
modules_install" or do I have to do make bzImage; make modulesmodules_install?
It is today supported that you specify all targets in one line. The preferred way to do this is to use:
make all modules_install
'all' will build bot default target and modules - and works across all architectures.
Quoted 1 line
Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
No, the top-level README could have included this, but does not so today.
Sam
Quoted 7 lines · Sam Ravnborg
Quoted 4 lines · Karel Kulhavý
Hello
Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules
modules_install" or do I have to do make bzImage; make modulesmodules_install?It is today supported that you specify all targets in one line.
Last time I tried, there were bugs with 'make -j3 bzImage modules'. Is that now fixed?
Signature · 1 line
dwmw2
Quoted 4 lines
Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules
modules_install" or do I have to do make bzImage; make modulesmodules_install?Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
I see nothing wrong with the first invocation, the second you should change the ; to &&. if make bzImage fails, it'll stop there.
I typically do all seperate like this:
make -j 20 bzImage && make -j 20 modules && make -j modules_install
Sometimes it doesn't complete, not sure why.
Signature · 1 line
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
Quoted 5 lines · Wakko Warner
Quoted 4 lines
Is it correct to issue "make bzImage modules
modules_install" or do I have to do make bzImage; make modulesmodules_install?Is there any documentation where I can read answer to this question?
Quoted 7 lines
I see nothing wrong with the first invocation, the second you should change the ; to &&. if make bzImage fails, it'll stop there.
I typically do all seperate like this:
make -j 20 bzImage && make -j 20 modules && make -jmodules_installSometimes it doesn't complete, not sure why.
Could you please enable verbose output, and send me a private mail with the log when it fails.
Maybe I can dig out why it fails.
I'm sitting on UP here, so i usually never tries with -jN where N > 2.
make V=1 -j20 && make V=1 -j20 modules && make V=1 -j20 modules_install
Sam