linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New binutils for kernel

To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
Subject: Re: New binutils for kernel
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:17:35 +0200
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
In-reply-to: <20020820151135.GA23807@nevyn.them.org>; from dan@debian.org on Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:11:35AM -0400
References: <20020820165835.B26852@linux-mips.org> <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020820170025.8700L-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl> <20020820151135.GA23807@nevyn.them.org>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:11:35AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> > > > 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. 
> > > 
> > > Such considerations have kept us back at antique levels of binutils.  And
> > > juggling with several different versions for userland, and two kernel
> > > flavours is evil ...
> > 
> >  Any version since 2.11, possibly older, should work just fine for 32-bit
> > MIPS.  I don't think there are any significant interface changes between
> > 2.11 and 2.13, so if 2.13 works then 2.11 will not bail out either.  Thus
> > there is no need to force 2.13 for 32-bit MIPS, but I think it is
> > acceptable to stop caring about versions older than 2.11 in the nearby
> > future.
> 
> Sure.

Sounds like we'll then recommend 2.13 for the fearless and 64-bit developers
and 2.11 for everybody else.

  Ralf


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