Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:22:21 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for March 27 |
| |
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:54:23PM +0100, Jan Dittmer wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:32:26PM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:47:45 +0200 > > > Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > According to Jan's page, there's still a build error with the defconfig: > > > > http://l4x.org/k/?d=40450#err > > > > > > Hmm...that must be a pretty ancient toolchain. > > That's the toolchain from back when avr32 was first integrated in the > kernel. So it may be outdated, but I didn't read any statement on > the contrary. I tend to keep the toolchains stable as long as > possible. > > > > FWIW, a more recent toolchain is available here: > > > > > > http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/BinutilsPatches > > > http://avr32linux.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GccPatches > > So how can I get notified if I need a more recent toolchain? > IMHO every architecture should have a file somewhere (in > the kernel tree) where the required toolchain versions are > listed and required patches are linked. That would make it > such discussions unnecessary.
Even more important, all architectures should get all their required patches into upstream binutils and gcc.
There might be some time at the beginning of a port until this state is reached, but for the majority of our architectures plain upstream binutils 2.18.50.0.5 and gcc 4.3.0 already give a successful kernel build.
And I'm regularly poking arch maintainers to get their binutils and gcc patches upstream.
Regarding "required toolchain versions" - I'm not even sure anyone really knows what the minimum binutils version for x86 is...
> Jan
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
| |