| To: | "Steven J. Hill" <sjhill@cotw.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Binary compatibility break understood ? |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com> |
| Date: | Wed, 9 May 2001 16:24:20 -0300 |
| Cc: | Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>, Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org>, Tom Appermont <tea@sonycom.com>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <3AF997CE.E2885B9@cotw.com>; from sjhill@cotw.com on Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:17:34PM -0500 |
| References: | <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010509144913.2489C-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl> <ho7kzqd5kb.fsf@gee.suse.de> <20010509150934.B2073@bacchus.dhis.org> <3AF997CE.E2885B9@cotw.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:17:34PM -0500, Steven J. Hill wrote: > > It's only modutils which for correct functionality depends on the trad- > > format, so I don't see any real reason for raising version requirements > > for libc. > > > I can see your point...but...if we are trying fix the MIPS/Linux target > from this point forward we should at least make people aware of what > is going on. I propose spitting out a warning message when 'configure' > is ran that if an older version of binutils/ld is found, then we warn > the user that they may be unable to correctly use Linux kernel features > or something like that. Comments? These binutils break the kernel compilations, so we should check them as part of kernel module compiles. Ralf |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Binary compatibility break understood ?, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: lift the ioport_resource limit ..., Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Binary compatibility break understood ?, Steven J. Hill |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Binary compatibility break understood ?, Ryan Murray |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |