On 4/18/06, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > | From: Lonni J Friedman <netllama@xxxxxxxxx> > > | I agree that this could still point to a driver bug. I asked the > | developer whether he had verified if his driver works with the > | 'official' gnu gcc-4.1, and he stated that he had not. > > Did you ask this on the spca50x-devs list? That is probably the best I couldn't even find such a list on the spca5xx website. If you've got a pointer, I'll gladly take the discussion there. > place to discuss this. It should be better than private mail to the > developer because other users can join in. It should be better than > mail to this list since it is more appropriately specialized. But it > would great to tell us how this works out. > > A quick look at that list shows a certain amount of bad behaviour on > the part of this driver. > > Archive: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=spca50x-devs > > Scary thread: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=9976551&forum_id=32 > > One FC5 thread (there are others): > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=10186347&forum_id=32 > > | I will be > | unlikely to have time in the near future (within the next few weeks at > | least) to rebuild a kernel against gcc-3.2 to verify his claim. So, > | if someone else has the time, please let us know how it works out. > > I don't think that it make sense to use GCC-3.2. Red Hat did their QA > using 4.x and other parts of the Fedora kernel may break with 3.2. I wouldn't be building a Fedora kernel, I'd be building a kernel.org kernel, which most definitely is qualified against gcc versions earlier than 4.x. But I do see your point. > > It makes more sense to use GCC4.x without -O. But just for the > driver. Surely you can build the driver without building the kernel. Well sure, but since the spca5xx developer said that he thought gcc-4.x was the problem, I figured it would be a better use of my time to not spend time on gcc-4.x, and isolate whether the version of gcc that the spca5xx dev claims is 'good' truly is. > > I must admit that the following message disturbs me. Building a > driver should not require write access to the kernel source tree. > tom1:/usr/src/spca5xx-20060301# make > Building SPCA5XX driver for 2.5/2.6 kernel. > Remember: you must have read/write access to your kernel source tree. > This was extracted from > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=10001199&forum_id=32 Yea, that bugged me too. Overall, i'm not at all impressed with spca5xx or its management. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman netllama@xxxxxxxxx LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org
