linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New binutils for kernel

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: New binutils for kernel
From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:10:58 -0700
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
In-reply-to: <20020820165835.B26852@linux-mips.org>; from ralf@linux-mips.org on Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:58:35PM +0200
References: <20020819171238.A7457@linux-mips.org> <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020820161204.8700H-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl> <20020820162959.A26852@linux-mips.org> <20020820145051.GA17311@nevyn.them.org> <20020820165835.B26852@linux-mips.org>
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:58:35PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:50:51AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > > 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. 
> 
> 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 ...

I have no problems with binutils 2.13.90.0.4 on Linux/mips. I rebuild
everything, from kernel to rpms, for Linux/mipsel with it. They seem
to run fine.


H.J.


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