lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1
Hi!

On Thu 2013-09-26 17:48:29, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/25/2013 11:13:17 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Rob Landley wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >> > I'd strongly suggest you make your binutils compatible with newer
> >> > instruction syntax instead of making the kernel more complex.
> >>
> >> Meaning I play whack-a-mole as this becomes permission to depend
> >on endless
> >> new gnuisms just because they're there and nobody else is
> >regression testing
> >> against them, not because they actually add anything.
> >
> >Gnuism?
> >
> >Let me quote the ARM ARchitecture Reference Manual, version 7
> >revision C,
> >section A8.8.44 (sorry for the whitespace dammage):
>
> Globally changing the binutils requirement for all architectures, as
> the doc patch at the start of this thread proposed doing, would mean
> gnuisms in common code (ext2 and such) wouldn't get caught, giving
> llvm and pcc and such a moving target when trying to build the
> kernel with non-gnu toolchains. That's what I meant by gnuisms
> breeding.

Well. I did the docs patch, but my preferred solution would actually
be to get the patches reverted so that it still works with old
binutils.

(So far, I updated one machine with new cross environment, two more to
go.)

Anyway, it should be solved _somehow_.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-27 22:01    [W:0.061 / U:6.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site