Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:29:12 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: RFC: x86: kill binutils 2.16.x? |
| |
On 03/02/2011 01:28 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On 2 March 2011 21:11, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> 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? > > I only uploaded the binaries in > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/old/ > > which should match the sources in > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/src/ > > The binaries outside old/ are not made by me, but Tony (added to Cc). > > I assume you're talking about the binaries _outside_ bin/old/, but let > me know if I'm mistaken :-) >
Sorry, you're right... I got confused because the index file is still the old one...
-hpa
| |