On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:29:59PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> 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?
Well, I think 2.13's a good idea, but it's very new. I'd say that was
acceptable as long as you're looking at MIPS64 only, not at MIPS32.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer