[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yw1xpprywhad.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:11:38 +0100
From: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Trivial patch monkey <trivial@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel\@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> writes:
> On 09/23/2013 06:59:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> During 3.12-rc, Will Deacon introduced code into arch/arm that
>> requires binutils 2.22.
>
> Um, my toolchain is using the last gplv2 snapshot of binutils out of
> git, which is just past 2.17 and can build armv7 (but not armv8).
>
> Binutils 2.12->2.22 is quite the jump. (11 years.) I'd except some
> thought to have gone into that? Possibly a mention of it?
I seriously doubt that 2.12 still works at all (I doubt it can even be
built on a modern system). In my experience, binutils older than 2.19
or so rarely works properly for ARM.
What value is there in maintaining compatibility with a truly ancient
binutils version anyway?
--
Måns Rullgård
mans@...sr.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists