Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:30:50 -0800 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: RFC: x86: kill binutils 2.16.x? |
| |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:25:51 +0100 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 12:11:31PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 03/02/2011 12:03 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:15:14 -0800 > > > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > > > > >> binutils 2.16 (and presumably its prereleases, binutils 2.15.9x) appears > > >> to have more bugs than any other version of binutils released in modern > > >> history, *before or after*. > > >> > > >> We chronically run into problems because that particular binutils > > >> version breaks code that works fine elsewhere. > > >> > > >> I would like to know who would suffer from formally discontinuing > > >> support for that version. I understand some version of SLES shipped it, > > >> but I don't know for sure. > > >> > > > > > > I gave up and became a customer of > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/index_old.shtml > > > > Vegard, > > > > The source directory in the above doesn't seem to match the binary > > directories, and is stuck at binutils 2.16.1. At the very best this is > > iffy from a GPL perspective, and very confusing to users. > > > > This is obviously a highly useful project, can we straighten out the > > source situation? > > The binaries has never worked for me (on my Intel Atom 32 bit box). > Today I use crosstool-ng - which works great. > [Need to polish my patch to add saprc support...] > > URL: http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/projects/crosstool
Hm, thanks, I'll try that. I was also having problems with the kernel.org crosstools...
--- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
| |