| To: | Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Binary compatibility break understood ? |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com> |
| Date: | Thu, 10 May 2001 16:22:21 -0300 |
| Cc: | "Steven J. Hill" <sjhill@cotw.com>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <20010510110847.A2799@cyberhqz.com>; from rmurray@debian.org on Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0700 |
| References: | <20010505144708.A12575@paradigm.rfc822.org> <20010507163210.B2381@bacchus.dhis.org> <20010508202518.A13476@paradigm.rfc822.org> <20010508214313.A12528@bacchus.dhis.org> <20010509095955.A8392@sonycom.com> <20010509104635.D12267@paradigm.rfc822.org> <3AF934AE.38AB0089@cotw.com> <20010510110847.A2799@cyberhqz.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0700, Ryan Murray wrote: > So, in summary: > * all existing binaries do not need to be recompiled, and should > continue to work. (shlibs included?) > * all new binaries should use the new formats. > > To get the new targets working correctly: > * new binutils > * new gcc built with new binutils (does the 2.95.4 branch have the > changes, or only 3.0?) > * new libc built with new gcc > * rebuild gcc with the new libc > > Am I missing anything? The latter three steps are not necessary. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: lift the ioport_resource limit ..., Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: insmod problems, Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Binary compatibility break understood ?, Ryan Murray |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Binary compatibility break understood ?, Tom Appermont |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |