linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

New binutils for kernel

To: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Subject: New binutils for kernel
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:29:59 +0200
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020820161204.8700H-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>; from macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl on Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:19:35PM +0200
References: <20020819171238.A7457@linux-mips.org> <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020820161204.8700H-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:19:35PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> 
> > >  Are you sure?  I believe the patch effectively forces everyone to use
> > > binutils 2.13 for mips64.  Is it really acceptable now? 
> > 
> > In the past week I ended up more and more kludging around binutils bugs.
> > We need something newer and distributions seem to be all at ~ 2.12 at least.
> 
>  While 2.12 may be OK from the file format point of view, there are
> serious bugs leading to bad code.  So bad the kernel doesn't work.  It's
> really 2.13 that is needed.  I have another less important fix that will
> hopefully go in to 2.13.1 and all gcc versions are broken without yet
> another fix (it bites in mm/mmap.c; not sure if fatally). 
> 
> > So I guess it's time to bite the bullet?
> 
>  Since I'm using 2.13 anyway, it's alike to me.  But it should be
> discussed at the list, IMO.

Yep.  It won't hurt most of us kernel hackers very much but in particular
the distribution people may want to comment.

So any comments?

  Ralf


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>