Re: [Alug] RedHat 7.1 module compile problems
joe_frost@omnis-software.com wrote:
Has anyone had trouble with "make modules" on RedHat 7.1?
There seems to be some errors in module.h
Not using RH, but Mandrake 8.0 is completely up the spout when it comes to compiling modules (kernel 2.3...mdksomething). Knowing the supposed similarity of these two distros I have to wonder if there's a link. Anyone managed to recompile the kernel under 'drake 8? (PS: I hope this is the address I'm subbed from, apologies to the moderator if not). Richard
It looks like I was missing a step out (I'd never needed it before but it seems good practice from what I've found on the net). Prior to doing my "make xconfig" I needed to do a "make mrproper", after this everything compiled fine. For reference it was a vanilla install of RedHat 7.1 using the version of gcc that ships with that distro and compiling 2.4.2 Thanks to all those who offered advice on this, Joe
I'm glad you got everything sorted out, but I would advise you (or rather redhat advise you) to use kgcc not gcc for compiling kernels. Just change the two entries of 'gcc' in the top level Makefile to 'kgcc' and compile as normal.. I've compiled a kernel with gcc under RH7 with no problems, but I then remember that I hadn't done the kgcc hack.. I don't know how stable a RH7 gcc kernel will be, but to be honest I didn't want to find out after my filesystem had been chewed up!!! Neill Joe Frost wrote:
It looks like I was missing a step out (I'd never needed it before but it seems good practice from what I've found on the net).
Prior to doing my "make xconfig" I needed to do a "make mrproper", after this everything compiled fine.
For reference it was a vanilla install of RedHat 7.1 using the version of gcc that ships with that distro and compiling 2.4.2
Thanks to all those who offered advice on this,
Joe
-- Open Source Specialists http://www.entora.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)701 0723686 Fax: +44 (0)870 3214368
Neill Newman wrote:
I'm glad you got everything sorted out, but I would advise you (or rather redhat advise you) to use kgcc not gcc for compiling kernels. Just change the two entries of 'gcc' in the top level Makefile to 'kgcc' and compile as normal..
What's the benefit? I've never heard of kgcc. Is it a RH thing... Cheers, Laurie. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Brown laurie@brownowl.com PGP key at http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Brown wrote:
Neill Newman wrote:
I'm glad you got everything sorted out, but I would advise you (or rather redhat advise you) to use kgcc not gcc for compiling kernels. Just change the two entries of 'gcc' in the top level Makefile to 'kgcc' and compile as normal..
What's the benefit?
BIG DISCLAIMER: I don't want to stir up stuff up in this thread, but... There were loads and loads of threads on kernel trafic about RH 7 releasing gcc 2.96. RH said it was ok, gcc team said it wasn't.. Basically gcc 2.96 would compile most things fine, even the kernel, but they were not sure about the stability of the binary ;) (I'm sure somebody will correct me on this).. so RH included a previous version of gcc (I think it was gcc 2.7.x) with which they advised people to use when compiling the kernel... I've used kgcc for kernel builds ever since rh7 came out and have had no problems... if you have a quick search you will find loads of info about this on deja and the like... as I said, I'm not going to make my opinion on wether RH did the right thing or not.. peace, love and kgcc ;) Neill -- Open Source Specialists http://www.entora.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)701 0723686 Fax: +44 (0)870 3214368
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:44:05PM +0100, Neill Newman wrote:
I'm glad you got everything sorted out, but I would advise you (or rather redhat advise you) to use kgcc not gcc for compiling kernels. Just change the two entries of 'gcc' in the top level Makefile to 'kgcc' and compile as normal..
Surely you don't even need to edit the makefile, you should be able to do (in a bash shell): export GCC=/path/and/kgcc then compile as normal, taking for granted that the Makefile hasn't been f00ked over ;) Cheers, Brett
Brett Parker wrote:
Surely you don't even need to edit the makefile, you should be able to do (in a bash shell):
export GCC=/path/and/kgcc
then compile as normal, taking for granted that the Makefile hasn't been f00ked over ;)
if you think that will override the sourced entry in the makefile then go ahead.. but I don't think it will work ;).. Neill -- Open Source Specialists http://www.entora.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)701 0723686 Fax: +44 (0)870 3214368
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 03:53:39PM +0100, Neill Newman wrote:
Brett Parker wrote:
Surely you don't even need to edit the makefile, you should be able to do (in a bash shell):
export GCC=/path/and/kgcc
then compile as normal, taking for granted that the Makefile hasn't been f00ked over ;)
if you think that will override the sourced entry in the makefile then go ahead.. but I don't think it will work ;)..
Neill
its worked for me before, not in a kernel I will admit, but then being a deb user I can just stick with its default gcc which works nicely everytime ;) Cheers, Brett
participants (5)
-
Brett Parker -
Joe Frost -
Laurie Brown -
Neill Newman -
Richard George