On Mon, 29 May 2017 20:22:41 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > *thin* archives does require binutils 2.19. That's nearly 10 years > > old, but we advertise 2.12 minimum at the moment. > > I think we're ok with upgrading that. We've been allowing some > ridiculously old tools at times. I think "feature is 10 years old and > actively used by other projects" (Qt uses it from some googling, for > example) is more than sufficient. Well we might have to. I couldn't make thick archives work easily because we have multiple levels of built-in.o, and with thick you get an archive of an archive which the linker does not understand. Fixing that would mean unpacking the archive and repacking it for every built-in.o input you link -- too painful. I suspect Google uses the format internally too because they added the initial support. https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-03/msg00150.html Support has been pervasively added to binutils -- nm, objdump, ld, etc. I think it falls into the category of well supported. > > If somebody has user space older than that, they presumably aren't > building new kernels either. Yeah I think it's reasonable to drop support for such old toolchain if we have a reason for it. I'll send a patch to 0day and if that passes, I'll see if it's something Stephen would put into linux-next. Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
