Re: RFC: x86: kill binutils 2.16.x?

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:25:51 +0100 Sam Ravnborg wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 12:11:31PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 03/02/2011 12:03 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:15:14 -0800
> > > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> binutils 2.16 (and presumably its prereleases, binutils 2.15.9x) appears
> > >> to have more bugs than any other version of binutils released in modern
> > >> history, *before or after*.
> > >>
> > >> We chronically run into problems because that particular binutils
> > >> version breaks code that works fine elsewhere.
> > >>
> > >> I would like to know who would suffer from formally discontinuing
> > >> support for that version.  I understand some version of SLES shipped it,
> > >> but I don't know for sure.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > I gave up and became a customer of
> > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/index_old.shtml
> > 
> > Vegard,
> > 
> > The source directory in the above doesn't seem to match the binary
> > directories, and is stuck at binutils 2.16.1.  At the very best this is
> > iffy from a GPL perspective, and very confusing to users.
> > 
> > This is obviously a highly useful project, can we straighten out the
> > source situation?
> 
> The binaries has never worked for me (on my Intel Atom 32 bit box).
> Today I use crosstool-ng - which works great.
> [Need to polish my patch to add saprc support...]
> 
> URL: http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/projects/crosstool

Hm, thanks, I'll try that.  I was also having problems with the kernel.org
crosstools...

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***